High Survival of Modular Tapered Stems for Proximal Femoral Bone Defects at 5 to 10 Years Followup
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Currently, the two most commonly used options for the revision of femoral components in North America are: cylindrical, nonmodular, cobalt-chromium stems and tapered, fluted, modular, titanium (TFMT) stems. Previous reports have cited high failure rates with cylindrical cobalt chrome stems in large femoral defects but the longer term survival of the fluted stems is unknown.
We examined the 5- to 10-year survival of TFMT stems implanted for severe femoral defects.
We reviewed all 65 patients with severe proximal bone defects revised with the TMFT stem between January 2000 and 2006. Ten were lost to followup and seven were dead, leaving 48 patients for followup at 5 to 10 years (mean, 84 months; range, 60–120 months). All patients completed five quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaires. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening, subsidence, and preservation of proximal host bone stock.
Implant survivorship was 90%. No patient underwent revision for either subsidence or loosening. Subsidence occurred in seven patients (average, 12.3 mm) but all achieved secondary stability. Five patients underwent revision as a result of fracture of the stem and all had the original standard stem design, which has since been modified. All five implant fractures occurred at the modular stem junction. Mean QOL outcomes were: WOMAC = 81 (pain), Oxford = 75, SF-12 = 54 (mental) and 38 (physical), UCLA Activity = 4, and satisfaction overall = 73.
Midterm survivorship of modular titanium stems in large femoral defects is high; however, ongoing surveillance of stem junctional fatigue life is required.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
- Amstutz, HC, Thomas, BJ, Jinnah, R, Kim, W, Grogan, T, Yale, C (1984) Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 66: pp. 228-241
- Bellamy, N, Buchanan, WW, Goldsmith, CH, Campbell, J, Stitt, LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 15: pp. 1833-1840
- Bohm, P, Bischel, O (2001) Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revision followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 83: pp. 1023-1031 CrossRef
- Busch, CA, Charles, MN, Haydon, CM, Bourne, RB, Rorabeck, CH, MacDonald, SJ, McCalden, RW (2005) Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 87: pp. 1333-1336 CrossRef
- Dawson, J, Fitzpatrick, R, Carr, A, Murray, D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 78: pp. 185-190
- Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1–6.
- Engh, CA, Massin, P, Suthers, KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 257: pp. 107-128
- Engh, CA, Ellis, TJ, Koralewicz, LM, McAuley, JP, Engh, CA (2002) Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 17: pp. 955-960 CrossRef
- Garbuz, DS, Toms, A, Masri, BA, Duncan, CP (2006) Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 453: pp. 199-202 CrossRef
- Garcia-Cimbrelo, E, Garcia-Rey, E, Cruz-Pardos, A, Madero, R (2010) Stress-shielding of the proximal femur using an extensively porous-coated femoral component without allograft in revision surgery: a 5-to-17-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 92: pp. 1363-1369 CrossRef
- Gozzard, C, Blom, A, Taylor, A, Smith, E, Learmonth, I (2003) A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 18: pp. 638-642 CrossRef
- Hamilton, WG, Cashen, DV, Ho, H, Hopper, RH, Engh, CA (2007) Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 22: pp. 106-110 CrossRef
- Kang, MN, Huddleston, JI, Hwang, K, Imrie, S, Goodman, SB (2008) Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 23: pp. 220-225 CrossRef
- Katz, JN, Phillips, CB, Baron, JA, Fossel, AH, Mahomed, NN, Barrett, J, Lingard, EA, Harris, WH, Poss, R, Lew, RA, Guadagnoli, E, Wright, EA, Losina, E (2003) Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 48: pp. 560-569 CrossRef
- Koster, G, Walde, TA, Willert, HG (2008) Five-to-10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 23: pp. 964-970 CrossRef
- Krishnamurthy, AB, MacDonald, SJ, Paprosky, WG (1997) 5-to-13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 12: pp. 839-847 CrossRef
- Kwong, LM, Miller, AJ, Lubinus, P (2003) A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2-to-6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 18: pp. 94-97 CrossRef
- Lakstein, D, Backstein, D, Safir, O, Kosashvilli, Y, Gross, AE (2010) Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468: pp. 1310-1315 CrossRef
- Lakstein, D, Eliaz, N, Levi, O, Backstein, D, Kosashvili, Y, Safir, O, Gross, AE (2011) Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 93: pp. 57-65 CrossRef
- Losina, E, Plerhoples, T, Fossel, AH, Mahomed, NN, Barrett, J, Creel, AH, Wright, EA, Katz, JN (2005) Offering patients the opportunity to choose their hospital for total knee replacement: impact on satisfaction with the surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 53: pp. 646-652 CrossRef
- McAuley, JP, Engh, CA (2004) Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 429: pp. 215-221 CrossRef
- McInnis, DP, Horne, G, Devane, PA (2006) Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty. 21: pp. 372-380 CrossRef
- Meek, RM, Garbuz, DS, Masri, BA, Greidanus, NV, Duncan, CP (2004) Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 86: pp. 480-485
- Moreland, JR, Bernstein, ML (1995) Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 319: pp. 141-150
- Murphy, SB, Rodriguez, J (2004) Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 19: pp. 115-119 CrossRef
- Nadaud, MC, Griffin, WL, Fehring, TK, Bohannon Mason, J, Tabor, OB, Odum, S, Nussman, DS (2005) Cementless revision total hip arthroplasty without allograft in severe proximal femoral defects. J Arthroplasty. 20: pp. 738-744 CrossRef
- Ovesen, O, Emmeluth, C, Hofbauer, C, Overgaard, S (2010) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty. 25: pp. 348-354 CrossRef
- Paprosky, WG, Greidanus, NV, Antoniou, J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 369: pp. 230-242 CrossRef
- Park, MS, Lee, JH, Park, JH, Ham, DH, Rhee, YK (2010) A distal fluted, proximal modular femoral prosthesis in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 25: pp. 932-938 CrossRef
- Park, YS, Moon, YW, Lim, SJ (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 22: pp. 993-999 CrossRef
- Restrepo, C, Mashadi, M, Parvizi, J, Austin, MS, Hozack, WJ (2011) Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 469: pp. 476-482 CrossRef
- Richards, CJ, Duncan, CP, Masri, BA, Garbuz, DS (2010) Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468: pp. 491-496 CrossRef
- Rodriguez, JA, Fada, R, Murphy, SB, Rasquinha, VJ, Ranawat, CS (2009) Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 24: pp. 751-758 CrossRef
- Sporer, SM, Paprosky, WG (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 417: pp. 203-209
- Sporer, SM, Paprosky, WG (2004) Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 429: pp. 227-231 CrossRef
- Ware, J, Kosinski, M, Keller, SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 34: pp. 220-233 CrossRef
- Weeden, SH, Paprosky, WG (2002) Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 17: pp. 134-137 CrossRef
- Weiss, RJ, Beckman, MO, Enocson, A, Schmalholz, A, Stark, A (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 26: pp. 16-23 CrossRef
- High Survival of Modular Tapered Stems for Proximal Femoral Bone Defects at 5 to 10 Years Followup
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Volume 471, Issue 2 , pp 454-462
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Room 3114, 910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 4E3, Canada