International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1007–1013 | Cite as

Global radiological score for femoral cementless revision stem

  • François Canovas
  • Sophie Putman
  • Julien Girard
  • Olivier Roche
  • François Bonnomet
  • Pierre Le Béguec
Original Paper



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision with cementless stems using a numeric global radiological score (GRxS) that summarizes two previously validated scores: secondary bone stock (SBS) and osseointegration–secondary stability (O-SS).


One hundred fifty cases of THA were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 6.5 ± 3.7 years. The GRxS combines the SBS, which evaluated cortical bone thickness, bone density and bone defects in each Gruen zone and the O-SS, which evaluated the location and extent of a single radiolucent line. To calculate the GRxS, the SBS and O-SS were each expressed on a 10-point scale and given equal weighing. The final result was a number out of 20. The GRxS was used to assign a radiological grade to each THA case: very good (20), good (18–15), average (13–12), or poor (≤ 10). The numerical mean (Nm) was calculated for each grade. The inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was evaluated.


The inter-observer reproducibility was good (0.8) and the intra-observer reproducibility was very good (0.9). The GRxS was considered very good in 46 cases (Nm 20), good in 57 cases (Nm 16.6), average in 25 cases and poor in 22 cases. There was a significant relationship between the GRxS and the Harris Hip and Postel Merle d’Aubigné scores (p < 0.0001), and the initial bone stock (p = 0.0001).


The GRxS is reliable and reproducible. This information can be used by surgeons to adapt the surgical technique to bone characteristics (especially during revision cases) and to compare the outcomes of different implant designs.


Hip Osseointegration Bone stock Arthroplastie Revision 



We are grateful to Mathias Goldschild for his work, Henri Migaud and Daniel de Menezes for their advice on this study, Anne Ingels for the statistical analysis and Joanne Archambault for editorial assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest statement

FC certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational)and that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer Educational).

SP certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Corin/Tornier).

JG certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Microport).

FB certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Amplitude) that should be not perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

PLB certifies that he has or may receive payments or benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer GmbH) that should be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethical board review statement

Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved or waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.


  1. 1.
    Canovas F, Girard J, Roche O, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Goldschild M, Le Béguec P (2015) Bone stock in revision femoral arthroplasty: a new evaluation. Int Orthop 39:1487–1494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roche O, Girard J, Canovas F, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Goldschild M, Le Béguec P (2016) Assessment of fixation for cementless femoral revision: Engh score versus radiotranslucent line measurement. Int Orthop 40:907–912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, Burckhardt K, Langlotz F, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA (2005) Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:182–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fracture. Treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end result study using new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Aubigné RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36A:451–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Menezes DF, Le Béguec P, Sieber HP, Goldschild M (2012) Stem and osteotomy length are critical for success of the transfemoral approach and cementless stem revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:883–888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galante J (1985) The need for a standardized system for evaluating results of total hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:511–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH, Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB (1990) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kavanagh BF, Fitzgerald RH Jr (1985) Clinical and roentgenographic assessment of total hip arthroplasty. A new hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193:133–140Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg 69B:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boisgard S, Moreau PE, Tixier H, Levai JP (2001) Bone reconstruction, leg length discrepancy, and dislocation rate in 52 Wagner revision total hip arthroplasties at 44-month follow up [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:147–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Böhm P, Bischel O (2001) Femoral revision with the Wagner SL Revision Stem. Evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4, 8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1023–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epinette JA, Geesink R, et le groupe AGORA (1994) Proposition d’un nouveau système d’évaluation radiologique des prothèses fémorales non cimentées: le score ARA. Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT 50(p):107–120Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korovessis P, Repantis T (2009) High medium-term survival of Zweymüller SLR-Plus® Stem used in femoral revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(8):2032–2040CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le Béguec P, Canovas F, Roche O, Goldschild M, Batard J (2015) Uncemented femoral stems for revision surgery. Springer International Publishing, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iwana DI, Nishii T, Miki H, Sugano N, Sakai T, Ohzono K, Yoshikawa H (2008) Proximal bone remodelling differed between two types of titanium long femoral components after cementless revision arthroplasty. Int Orthop 32(p):431–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Canovas F, Roche O, Girard J, Bonnomet F, Goldschild M, Le Béguec P (2015) Bone density and functional results after femoral revision with a cementless press-fit stem. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Canovas
    • 1
  • Sophie Putman
    • 2
  • Julien Girard
    • 2
  • Olivier Roche
    • 3
  • François Bonnomet
    • 4
  • Pierre Le Béguec
    • 5
  1. 1.Hôpital LapeyronieCHU MontpellierMontpellier CedexFrance
  2. 2.Hôpital Roger SalengroCHU LilleLille CedexFrance
  3. 3.Centre Chirurgical Emile GalléNancyFrance
  4. 4.Hôpital de HautepierreCHU StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance
  5. 5.RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations