Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 2, pp 454–462

High Survival of Modular Tapered Stems for Proximal Femoral Bone Defects at 5 to 10 Years Followup

  • Andrew P. Van Houwelingen
  • Clive P. Duncan
  • Bassam A. Masri
  • Nelson V. Greidanus
  • Donald S. Garbuz
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society

Abstract

Background

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.

Questions/Purposes

We examined the 5- to 10-year survival of TFMT stems implanted for severe femoral defects.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohm P, Bischel O. 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. 2001;83:1023–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busch CA, Charles MN, Haydon CM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW. Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1333–1336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engh CA Jr, Ellis TJ, Koralewicz LM, McAuley JP, Engh CA Sr. Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:955–960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garbuz DS, Toms A, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:199–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A, Madero R. 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. 2010;92:1363–1369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gozzard C, Blom A, Taylor A, Smith E, Learmonth I. A comparison of the reliability and validity of bone stock loss classification systems used for revision hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:638–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(Suppl 1):106–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang MN, Huddleston JI, Hwang K, Imrie S, Goodman SB. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:220–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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. Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:560–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koster G, Walde TA, Willert HG. Five-to-10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:964–970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5-to-13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2-to-6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(Suppl 1):94–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvilli Y, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1310–1315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakstein D, Eliaz N, Levi O, Backstein D, Kosashvili Y, Safir O, Gross AE. Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:57–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Losina E, Plerhoples T, Fossel AH, Mahomed NN, Barrett J, Creel AH, Wright EA, Katz JN. Offering patients the opportunity to choose their hospital for total knee replacement: impact on satisfaction with the surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53:646–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:215–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA. Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:372–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meek RM, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Duncan CP. Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:480–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murphy SB, Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(Suppl 1):115–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nadaud MC, Griffin WL, Fehring TK, Bohannon Mason J, Tabor OB Jr, Odum S, Nussman DS. Cementless revision total hip arthroplasty without allograft in severe proximal femoral defects. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:738–744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ovesen O, Emmeluth C, Hofbauer C, Overgaard S. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:348–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park MS, Lee JH, Park JH, Ham DH, Rhee YK. A distal fluted, proximal modular femoral prosthesis in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:932–938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:993–999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Restrepo C, Mashadi M, Parvizi J, Austin MS, Hozack WJ. Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:476–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:491–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:751–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:227–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(Suppl 1):134–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A, Schmalholz A, Stark A. Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:16–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew P. Van Houwelingen
    • 1
  • Clive P. Duncan
    • 1
  • Bassam A. Masri
    • 1
  • Nelson V. Greidanus
    • 1
  • Donald S. Garbuz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations