Uncemented Femoral Revision: Cylindrical Extensively Porous-Coated and Titanium Fluted Tapered Femoral Stems

  • Eustathios Kenanidis
  • Eleftherios TsiridisEmail author
  • Stanislav Bondarenko
  • Volodymyr Filippenko
  • Volodymyr Mezentsev
  • Rashid Tikhilov
  • Alexey Denisov
  • Igor Shubnyakov
  • M. Ollivier
  • S. Parratte
  • X. Flecher
  • J.-N. Argenson
  • Sérgio Goncṃalves
  • Thiago Aguiar
  • Pedro Dantas
  • Lionel E. Lazaro
  • Lazaros A. Poultsides
  • Micheal B. Cross
  • P. J. Boscainos
  • S. Patil
  • D. Meek
  • Libor Nečas
  • Marek Rovňák
  • Ivan De Martino
  • Peter K. Sculco
  • Thomas P. Sculco


Please check if the hierarchy of the heading levels are presented correctly.


  1. 1.
    Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG. Femoral bone loss revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:601–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. Management of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2015;25(4):380–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(4):517–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Sledge CB, et al. Long-term results of revision total hip replacement: a follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(4):513–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Antonio J, McCarthy JC, Bargar WL, et al. Classification of femoral abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 1993;296:133–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Sr. Distal ingrowth components. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 2004;420:135–41.Google 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(8):955–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;429:215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Cementless femoral revision: the role of monoblock versus modular stems. Curr Orthop. 2006;20:171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:230–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):134–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(4 Suppl 1):106–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paprosky WG, Weeden SH. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001;24(9):871–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egan KJ, Di Cesare PE. Intraoperative complications of revision hip arthroplasty using a fully porous-coated straight cobalt chrome femoral stem. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(Suppl):S45–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(10):1363–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Busch CA, Charles MN, Haydon CM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Macdonald SJ, et al. Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(10):1333–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomsen PB, Jensen NJ, Kampmann J, Bæk Hansen T. Revision hip arthroplasty with an extensively porous-coated stem - excellent long-term results also in severe femoral bone stock loss. Hip Int. 2013;23(4):352–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chung LH, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen WM, Chen TH, Liu CL. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: reliable choice for stem revision in Paprosky femoral type III defects. Orthopedics. 2012;35(7):e1017–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jayakumar P, Malik AK, Islam SU, Haddad FS. Revision hip arthroplasty using an extensively porous coated stem: medium term results. Hip Int. 2011 Mar-Apr;21(2):129–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fukui K, Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, Ichiseki T, Matsumoto T. Bone remodeling after a mean of 10 years in diaphyseal cortical defects repaired with femoral revision using bypass fixation of extensively porous-coated stems with high stiffness. Eur J OrthopSurgTraumatol. 2015 May;25(4):741–7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamilton WG, McAuley JP, Tabaraee E, Engh CA Sr. The outcome of rerevision of an extensively porous-coated stem with another extensively porous-coated stem. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Feb;23(2):170–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crawford CH 3rd, Malkani AL, Incavo SJ, Morris HB, Krupp RJ, Baker D. Femoral component revision using an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated stem. J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jan;19(1):8–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141–50.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Robinson J, et al. Reproducible fixation with a tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty at 8-15 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9 Suppl):214–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):491–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):454–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I. Long-term results of femoral revision with the Wagner Self-locking stem. Surg Technol Int. 2013;23:243–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I, Braggion M, Bartolozzi P. Femoral revision with the Wagner tapered stem: a ten- to 15-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(10):1320–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ko PS, Lam JJ, Tio MK, Lee OB, Ip FK. Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fractures in geriatric patients. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:446–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber M, Hempfing A, Orler R, Ganz R. Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2-9 years. Int Orthop. 2002;26:36–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:599–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Munro JT, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Tapered fluted modular titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 peri-prosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(suppl A):17–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Tapered fluted titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:590–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Böhm P, Bischel O. 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. 2001;83-A:1023–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gutiérrez Del Alamo J, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Castellanos V, Gil-Garay E. Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with the Wagner SL revision stem: a 5-year to 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:515–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boisgard S, Moreau PE, Tixier H, Levai JP. Bone reconstruction, leg length discrepancy, and dislocation rate in 52 Wagner revision total hip arthroplasties at 44- month follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87:147–54. (In French)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Konan S, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. HIP arthroplasty: avoiding and managing problems Modular tapered titanium stems in revision arthroplasty of the hip the risk and causes of stem fracture. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):50–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wagner H, Wagner M. Cone prosthesis for the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120(1–2):88–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kirk KL, Potter BK, Lehman RA Jr, Xenos JS. Effect of distal stem geometry on interface motion in uncemented revision total hip prostheses. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2007;36(10):545–9.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Konan S, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Non-modular tapered fluted titanium stems in hip revision surgery: gaining attention. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(Suppl A):56–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mantelos G, Koulouvaris P, Kotsovolos H, Xenakis T. Consistent new bone formation in 95 revisions: average 9-year follow-up. Orthopedics. 2008;31(7):654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three-to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116(4):187–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R. The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores femoral bone structure. Int Orthop. 2000;24(3):139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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(2):220–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lakstein D, Eliaz N, Levi O, et al. Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the midstem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93-A:57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Study Group. A comparison of modular tapered versus modular cylindrical stems for complex femoral revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 Suppl):71–3.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    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(7):993–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Palumbo BT, Morrison KL, Baumgarten AS, Stein MI, Haidukewych GJ, Bernasek TL. Results of revision total hip arthroplasty with modular, titanium-tapered femoral stems in severe proximal metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(4):690–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Amanatullah DF, Howard JL, Siman H, Trousdale RT, Mabry TM, Berry DJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone loss using a fluted tapered modular femoral component. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(3):312–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dzaja I, Lyons MC, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, Howard JL. Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular revision hip system in cases of severe bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(8):1594–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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(3):372–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tangsataporn S, Safir OA, Vincent AD, Abdelbary H, Gross AE, Kuzyk PR. Risk factors for subsidence of a modular tapered femoral stem used for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(6):1030–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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(3):348–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fink B, Urbansky K, Schuster P. Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:889–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hoberg M, Konrads C, Engelien J, Oschmann D, Holder M, Walcher M, Rudert M. Outcome of a modular tapered uncemented titanium femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015;39:1709–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang L, Dai Z, Wen T, Li M, Hu Y. Three to seven year follow-up of a tapered modular femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:275–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    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(3 Suppl 1):94–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Marx A, Beier A, Jung L, Lohmann CH, Halder AM. Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures treated with the uncemented Wagner revision stem. Hip Int. 2012;22(3):286–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Singh SP, Bhalodiya HP. Results of Wagner SL revision stem with impaction bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2013;47(4):357–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Baktır A, Karaaslan F, Gencer K, Karaoğlu S. Femoral revision using the Wagner SL revision stem: a single-surgeon experience featuring 11-19 years of follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(5):827–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Steno B, Necas L, Melisik M, Almasi J. Minimally invasive hollow trephine technique is recommended for revision of broken uncemented and extensively porous-coated monolithic femoral stems: a review of three cases. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisiss. 2014;25(2):112–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Flecher X, Buord JM, Blanc G, Sainsou B, Argenson JN. A technique for decision-making in cementless femoral revision hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2013;23(1):60–5. doi: 10.5301/HIP.2013.10723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Flecher X, Pearce O, Parratte S, AUbaniac JM, Argenson JN. Custom cementless stem improves hip function in young patients at 15-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(3):747–55. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1045-x. Epub 2009 Aug 19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kop AM, Keogh C, Swarts E. Proximal component modularity in THA-at what cost ? An implant retrieval study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(7):1885–94. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2155-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Klauser WU, Rasquinha VJ, Lubinus P, Ranawat CS. Patterns of osseointegration and remodeling in femoral revision with bone loss using modular, tapered, fluted, titanium stems. J Arthroplast. 2011;26(8):1409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    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 Arthroplast. 2011;26(1):16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5–10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(5):1310–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Klauser W, Bangert Y, Lubinus P, Kendoff D. Medium-term follow-up of a modular tapered noncemented titanium stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a single-surgeon experience. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(1):84–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Lewis P, Berger RA, Sporer SM, Paprosky W. Extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplast. 2008;23:527–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lim SJ, Moon YW, Park YS. Is extended trochanteric osteotomy safe for use in 2-stage revision of periprosthetic hip infection? J Arthroplast. 2011;26:1067–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mardones R, Gonzalez C, Cabanela ME, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Extended femoral osteotomy for revision of hip arthroplasty: results and complications. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:79–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Miner TM, Momberger NG, Chong D, Paprosky WL. The extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision hip arthroplasty: a critical review of 166 cases at mean 3-year, 9-month follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2001;16:S188–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pui CM, Bostrom MP, Westrich GH, Della Valle CJ, Macaulay W, Mont MA, Padgett DE. Increased complication rate following conversion total hip arthroplasty after cephalomedullary fixation for intertrochanteric hip fractures: a multi-center study. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(8 Suppl):45–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sandiford NA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS, Masri BA. Tapered, fluted titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: role and results in contemporary practice. Instr Course Lect. 2015;64:359–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eustathios Kenanidis
    • 1
  • Eleftherios Tsiridis
    • 2
    Email author
  • Stanislav Bondarenko
    • 3
  • Volodymyr Filippenko
    • 3
  • Volodymyr Mezentsev
    • 3
  • Rashid Tikhilov
    • 4
  • Alexey Denisov
    • 4
  • Igor Shubnyakov
    • 4
  • M. Ollivier
    • 5
  • S. Parratte
    • 5
  • X. Flecher
    • 6
    • 7
  • J.-N. Argenson
    • 5
  • Sérgio Goncṃalves
    • 8
  • Thiago Aguiar
    • 8
  • Pedro Dantas
    • 8
  • Lionel E. Lazaro
    • 9
  • Lazaros A. Poultsides
    • 9
  • Micheal B. Cross
    • 9
  • P. J. Boscainos
    • 10
  • S. Patil
    • 10
  • D. Meek
    • 10
  • Libor Nečas
    • 11
  • Marek Rovňák
    • 11
  • Ivan De Martino
    • 9
  • Peter K. Sculco
    • 9
  • Thomas P. Sculco
    • 9
  1. 1.Academic Orthopaedic UnitAristotle University Medical SchoolThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Academic Orthopaedic UnitPapageorgiou General Hospital, Aristotle University Medical SchoolThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Department of Joint PathologySytenko Institute of Spine and Joint PathologyKharkivUkraine
  4. 4.Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and OrthopedicsSaint PetersburgRussia
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyThe Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology UnitHospital NordMarseilleFrance
  7. 7.Aix Marseille Univ, APHM, CNRS, ISM, Sainte-Marguerite Hospital, Institute for Locomotion,MarseilleFrance
  8. 8.Hospital Curry CabralLisbonPortugal
  9. 9.Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  10. 10.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryQueen Elizabeth University HospitalGlasgowUK
  11. 11.Jessenius Faculty of MedicineComenius University in BratislavaMartinSlovakia

Personalised recommendations