Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 12, pp 3901–3911

What is the Long-term Survival of Impaction Allografting of the Femur?

  • Kevin L. Garvin
  • Beau S. Konigsberg
  • Natalie D. Ommen
  • Elizabeth R. Lyden
Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings



Revision hip surgery of the femur for patients with substantial bone loss is challenging. We previously reported 41 patients (44 hips) treated with femoral impaction grafting followed for a minimum of 2 years. The survivorship, using femoral reoperation for symptomatic aseptic loosening as the end point, was 97% at 8 years. However, data on longer term survival are crucial to adequately compare this surgical technique with other types of revision hip arthroplasty procedures.


We therefore asked what the survivorship of impaction bone grafting was at longer followup, if the severity of bone loss was associated with failure, and finally, if longer length stems had improved survival compared with shorter stems.


Between 1993 and 2002, 78 femoral revisions were performed in 71 patients using impaction grafting. The average age of the patients was 67 years (range, 33–84 years). Sixty-nine of the 71 patients were available for followup evaluation. We obtained Harris hip scores preoperatively and postoperatively. Radiographs were measured for radiolucent lines. Patients were followed a minimum of 2 years (average, 10.6 years; range, 2–19 years).


Survival of the femoral component without revision for any cause was 93% (confidence interval [CI], 83%–97%) and for aseptic loosening was 98% (CI, 87%–100%) at 19 years. Neither severity of bone loss nor the length of the stem predicted failure.


Impaction bone grafting has a high survival of 93% at the 19-year followup for patients with severe bone loss of their femur.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  1. 1.
    Eldridge JD, Smith EJ, Hubble MJ, Whitehouse SL, Learmonth ID. Massive early subsidence following femoral impaction grafting. J Arthroplasty. 1997;5:535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engelbrecht E, Heinert K. Klassifikation und behandlungsrichtlinien von knochensubstanzverlusten bei revisionsoperationen am hüftgelenk. In: Arcq M, ed. Primär- Und Revisions-Alloarthroplastik Hüft- Und Kniegelenk. 1987:189–201.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engh CA, Griffin WL, Marx CL. Cementless acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;1:53–59.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A. The extent of the bone defect affects the outcome of femoral reconstruction in revision surgery with impacted bone grafting: a five- to 17-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;11:1457–1464.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;1:14–21.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. ‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley AJ, Gie GA, Ling RS. Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;6:809–817.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;4:737–755.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hostner J, Hultmark P, Karrholm J, Malchau H, Tveit M. Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty. 2001;1:76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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;3(Suppl 1):94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahoney CR, Fehringer EV, Kopjar B, Garvin KL. Femoral revision with impaction grafting and a collarless, polished, tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;432:181–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;3:372–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moreland JR, Moreno MA. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:194–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mumme T, Muller-Rath R, Weisskopf M, Andereya S, Neuss M, Wirtz DC. The cement-free modular revision prosthesis MRP-hip revision stem prosthesis in clinical follow-up. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004;3:314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murphy SB, Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2004;4(Suppl 1):115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ornstein E, Linder L, Ranstam J, Lewold S, Eisler T, Torper M. Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem—the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;4:441–446.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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;3:348–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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;7:993–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schreurs BW, Arts JJ, Verdonschot N, Buma P, Slooff TJ, Gardeniers JW. Femoral component revision with use of impaction bone-grafting and a cemented polished stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;11:2499–2507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schreurs BW, Luttjeboer J, Thien TM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Buma P, Veth RP, Slooff TJ. Acetabular revision with impacted morselized cancellous bone graft and a cemented cup in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A concise follow-up, at eight to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;3:646–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G. Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP titan revision stem: outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years’ follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;5:306–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sierra RJ, Charity J, Tsiridis E, Timperley JA, Gie GA. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;6:1330–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Ten Have BL, Brouwer RW, van Biezen FC, Verhaar JA. Femoral revision surgery with impaction bone grafting: 31 hips followed prospectively for ten to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;5:615–618.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;4(Suppl 1):134–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wraighte PJ, Howard PW. Femoral impaction bone allografting with an Exeter cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem in revision hip replacement: a mean follow-up of 10.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;8:1000–1004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin L. Garvin
    • 1
  • Beau S. Konigsberg
    • 1
  • Natalie D. Ommen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elizabeth R. Lyden
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and RehabilitationUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  2. 2.College of MedicineUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  3. 3.College of Public HealthUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations