Advertisement

Medium-term outcomes of the S-ROM modular femoral stem in revision hip replacement

  • Jesús MoretaEmail author
  • Iker Uriarte
  • Xabier Foruria
  • Ane Loroño
  • Urko Agirre
  • Iñaki Jáuregui
  • José Luis Martínez-de los Mozos
Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract

Introduction

The objective of this study was to analyse results achieved with the S-ROM modular stem in revision surgery.

Materials and methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted from 2007 to 2015 including 51 patients who had a follow-up of ≥ 2 years and complete medical history. The mean age was 66.5 years old (34–87). The main reason for revision was aseptic loosening (38 cases, 74.5%), followed by infection (10, 19.6%), instability (2, 3.9%) and an adverse reaction associated with a metal-on-metal hip implant (1, 2%). Using the Paprosky classification, there were 22 cases of type I (43.1%), 27 of type II (52.9%) and 2 of type IIIA (4%). At the end of the follow-up, radiological parameters were assessed using Engh’s criteria. Pre- and postoperative clinical status was assessed using the Harris Hip Score, a visual analogue scale and the Merle D’Aubigné score.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 5.7 years (2–10). The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 45.5 points (22–65) to 85.8 (55–100) (p < 0.001), and the final mean Merle D’Aubigné scores were 5.2, 4.6 and 5.6 for pain, ability to walk and mobility, respectively. Osseointegration was confirmed in all except one patient with fibrous non-union. No aseptic loosening has been recorded. Postoperative complications were deep infection in four cases (7.8%) and dislocation in three (5.9%).

Conclusion

This study indicates good medium-term outcomes using a modular hip replacement system with porous-coated proximal sleeves in revision surgery in patients with Paprosky type I and II defects.

Keywords

Revision Total hip replacement surgery Femoral modular stem Non-cemented 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors have not received grant support or research funding, and we do not have any proprietary interests in the materials described in the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(10):1363–1369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moreland JR, Moreno MA (2001) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG (2002) Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):134–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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 22:993–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA (2006) Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem. J Arthroplasty 21:372–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME, Wallrich SL (1996) Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 11:411–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters CL, Rivero DP, Kull LR, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (1995) Revision total hip arthroplasty without cement: subsidence of proximally porous-coated femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1217–1226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandler HP, Ayres DK, Tan RC, Anderson LC, Varma AK (1995) Revision total hip replacement using the S-ROM femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:130–140Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christie MJ, DeBoer DK, Tingstad EM, Capps M, Brinson MF, Trick LW (2000) Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results. J Arthroplasty 15:840–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cameron HU (2002) The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:138–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walter WL, Walter WK, Zicat B (2006) Clinical and radiographic assessment of a modular cementless ingrowth femoral stem system for revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:172–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Imbuldeniya AM, Walter WK, Zicat BA, Walter WL (2014) The S-ROM hydroxyapatite proximally-coated modular femoral stem in revision hip replacement: results of 397 hips at a minimum ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 96-B:730–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64-B:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris WH (1969) 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 51-A:737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A:451–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14:231–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD, Ranawat CS (1985) Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982: a two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1074–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg 55-A:1629–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreland JR, Bernstein ML (1995) Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:141–150Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE, Lauro GR (1994) Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty done without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76-A:965–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCarthy JC, Lee JA (2007) Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:166–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cameron HU, Keppler L, McTighe T (2006) The role of modularity in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(4 Suppl 1):89–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parisi T, Burroughs B, Kwon YM (2015) Modular hip implant fracture at the stem sleeve interface. Orthopedics 38(3):e234–e239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shah RR, Goldstein JM, Cipparrone NE, Gordon AC, Jimenez ML, Goldstein WM (2017) Alarmingly high rate of implant fractures in one modular femoral stem design: a comparison of two implants. J Arthroplasty 32(10):3157–3162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and TraumaHospital Galdakao-UsansoloGaldakaoSpain
  2. 2.Research UnitHospital Galdakao-UsansoloGaldakaoSpain
  3. 3.Health Services Research on Chronic Diseases Network (REDISSEC)GaldakaoSpain

Personalised recommendations