Neck modularity in total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study of nine hundred twenty-eight titanium neck implants with a maximum follow-up of eighteen years

Abstract

Purpose

Neck modularity was introduced to improve total hip arthroplasty (THA) accuracy, but it has been associated with early breakages and corrosion issues. In our hospital, modular necks have been in clinical use since the 1990s. We retrospectively analysed the occurrence of these sequelae in implants placed between January 2000 and December 2014.

Methods

Survival data from patients operated on in our hospital were obtained from the regional arthroplasty registry (Registro dell’Impiantologia Protesica Ortopedica, RIPO). The cohort comprised 928 THAs on 908 patients. The average patient age was 67.8 years. Main indications were primary osteoarthritis (71.4%), fracture (9.2%), congenital dysplasia or congenital luxation (7.8%), and idiopathic osteonecrosis (6.4%). All femoral stems were cementless, with 318 anatomically shaped (34.3%), 579 straight (62.4%), and 31 short stems (3.3%). All necks used were made of titanium alloy. The average follow-up time was 9.6 years (range, 4–18 years).

Results

In total, 66 revisions were reported. The main revision causes were periprosthetic fractures (33.3%), aseptic stem loosening (19.7%), luxation (18.2%), and implant breakage (12.1%). Five modular neck breakages were recorded. The overall survival rate was 87.7% at 17 years. We did not observe any component corrosion. The neck breakage rate was 0.5%, and the luxation rate was 1.3%.

Conclusions

Our experience suggests that neck modularity is a safe, effective way to reconstruct the proximal femur in THA patients. We attribute the absence of corrosion to the exclusive use of titanium necks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Registro Regionale di Implantologia Protesica (RIPO). Emilia-Romagna Joint Registry (2017) 2017 Annual Report. Registro Regionale di Implantologia Protesica (RIPO), Emilia-Romagna

  2. 2.

    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2016) Annual Report

  3. 3.

    McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Cahalan TD, An KN, Cabanela ME (1995) Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(6):865–869

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A (2009) Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 6):121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Dennis DA, Lynch CB (2005) Stability advantages of a modular total hip system. Orthopedics 28(9 Suppl):s1049–s1052

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Turley GA, Griffin DR, Williams MA (2014) Effect of femoral neck modularity upon the prosthetic range of motion in total hip arthroplasty. Med Biol Eng Comput 52(8):685–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Traina F, De Fine M, Biondi F, Tassinari E, Galvani A, Toni A (2009) The influence of the centre of rotation on implant survival using a modular stem hip prosthesis. Int Orthop 33(6):1513–1518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Little NJ, Busch CA, Gallagher JA, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (2009) Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(11):2895–2900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sakalkale DP, Sharkey PF, Eng K, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH (2001) Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388(7):125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235(10):148–165

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Massin P, Geais L, Astoin E, Simondi M, Lavaste F (2000) The anatomic basis for the concept of lateralized femoral stems: a frontal plane radiographic study of the proximal femur. J Arthroplast 15(1):93–101

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14(3):231–242

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Husmann O, Rubin PJ, Leyvraz PF, de Roguin B, Argenson JN (1997) Three-dimensional morphology of the proximal femur. J Arthroplast 12(4):444–450

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Omlor GW, Ullrich H, Krahmer K, Jung A, Aldinger G, Aldinger P (2010) A stature-specific concept for uncemented, primary total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 81(1):126–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R et al (2009) Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(3):210–219

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Colas S, Allalou A, Poichotte A, Piriou P, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M (2017) Exchangeable femoral neck (dual-modular) THA prostheses have poorer survivorship than other designs: a nationwide cohort of 324,108 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(8):2046–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Graves SE, de Steiger R, Davidson D, Donnelly W, Rainbird S, Lorimer MF, Cashman KS, Vial RJ (2017) The use of femoral stems with exchangeable necks in primary total hip arthroplasty increases the rate of revision. Bone Joint J 99-B(6):766–773

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bernstein DT, Meftah M, Paranilam J, Incavo SJ (2016) Eighty-six percent failure rate of a modular-neck femoral stem design at 3 to 5 years: lessons learned. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(12):e49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Menciere ML, Amouyel T, Taviaux J, Bayle M, Laterza C, Mertl P (2014) Fracture of the cobalt-chromium modular femoral neck component in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(5):565–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cooper HJ, Urban RM, Wixson RL, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ (2013) Adverse local tissue reaction arising from corrosion at the femoral neck-body junction in a dual-taper stem with a cobalt-chromium modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(10):865–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Walsh CP, Hubbard JC, Nessler JP, Markel DC (2015) Revision of recalled modular neck rejuvenate and ABG femoral implants. J Arthroplast 30(5):822–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ollivier M, Parratte S, Galland A, Lunebourg A, Argenson JN (2015) Are titanium-on-titanium TiAl6V4 modular necks safe in total hip arthroplasty for non-overweight patients? Results of a prospective series at a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(7):1147–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gofton WT, Illical EM, Feibel RJ, Kim PR, Beaule PE (2017) A single-center experience with a titanium modular neck total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32(8):2450–2456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lex JR, Welch MD, See A, Edwards TC, Stavropoulos NA, Babis GC (2020) Systematic review of primary total hip arthroplasty using titanium-titanium modular-neck prostheses: the true risk of revision. Hip Int:1120700020916870

  25. 25.

    Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64(1):17–19

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dargel J, Oppermann J, Bruggemann GP, Eysel P (2014) Dislocation following total hip replacement. Dtsch Arztebl Int 111(51–52):884–890

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wetters NG, Murray TG, Moric M, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Della Valle CJ (2013) Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(2):410–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Grupp TM, Weik T, Bloemer W, Knaebel HP (2010) Modular titanium alloy neck adapter failures in hip replacement--failure mode analysis and influence of implant material. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Skendzel JG, Blaha JD, Urquhart AG (2011) Total hip arthroplasty modular neck failure. J Arthroplast 26(2):338.e331–338.e334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nawabi DH, Do HT, Ruel A, Lurie B, Elpers ME, Wright T, Potter HG, Westrich GH (2016) Comprehensive analysis of a recalled modular total hip system and recommendations for management. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Susanna Stea, Dr. Barbara Bordini, and the RIPO staff for providing the data needed to complete this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corrado Ciatti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Approval for the study was obtained from our ethics committee prior to study commencement.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maniscalco, P., Quattrini, F., Ciatti, C. et al. Neck modularity in total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study of nine hundred twenty-eight titanium neck implants with a maximum follow-up of eighteen years. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 2261–2266 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04686-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cementless stems
  • Neck modularity
  • Primary total hip arthroplasty
  • Survival analysis
  • Titanium alloy necks