Skip to main content

Cementless Revision Stems

  • 91 Accesses

Abstract

Regarding cementless revision stem systems, a distinction is made between monoblock and modular variants. With regard to the shape, a distinction is made between straight and curved stems, and with regard to the fixation site, between stems with proximal fixation and those with distal fixation. The distal fixation type can be designed for scratch fit, cone-in-cylinder, or cone-in-cone fixation. Some stem systems offer different combinations of these different specifications. The different stem types are discussed in this chapter. Preoperative planning should be used to determine which type of stem to choose.

Keywords

  • Revision stem
  • Monoblock
  • Modular
  • Cementless

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_6
  • Chapter length: 39 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 6.1
Fig. 6.2
Fig. 6.3
Fig. 6.4
Fig. 6.5
Fig. 6.6
Fig. 6.7
Fig. 6.8
Fig. 6.9
Fig. 6.10
Fig. 6.11
Fig. 6.12
Fig. 6.13
Fig. 6.14
Fig. 6.15
Fig. 6.16
Fig. 6.17
Fig. 6.18
Fig. 6.19
Fig. 6.20
Fig. 6.21
Fig. 6.22
Fig. 6.23
Fig. 6.24
Fig. 6.25
Fig. 6.26
Fig. 6.27
Fig. 6.28
Fig. 6.29
Fig. 6.30
Fig. 6.31

References

  1. Head WC, Wagner RA, Emerson RH, Malinin T. Restoration of femoral bone stock in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:697–703.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Head WC, Wagner RA, Emerson RH, Malinin TI. Revision total hip arthroplasty in the deficient femur with a proximal load-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:119–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Head WC, Malinin TI, Emerson RH, Mallory TH. Restoration of bone stock in revision surgery of the femur. Int Orthop. 2000;24:9–14.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Head WC, Emerson RH, Higgins LL. A titanium cementless calcar replacement prosthesis in revision surgery of the femur. 13-year experience. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:183–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup D, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME. Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:168–77.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buoncristiani AM, Dorr LD, Johnson C, Wan Z. Cementless revision of total hip arthroplasty using the anatomic porous replacement revision prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:403–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hussamy O, Lachiewicz PF. Revision total hip arthroplasty with the BIAS femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg. 1994;76-A:1137–48.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gosens T, van Langelaan EJ. Clinical and radiological outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2005;29:219–23.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim Y-H. Cementless revision hip arthroplasty using strut allografts and primary cementless proximal porous-coated prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:573–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME, Wallrichs SL. Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:411–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mulliken BD, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;325:156–62.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Peters CL, Rivero DP, Kull LR, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Revision total hip arthroplasty without cement: subsidence of proximally porous-coated femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg. 1995;77-A:1217–26.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Woolson ST, Delaney TJ. Failure of a proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(Suppl):S22–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wood TJ, Alzahrani M, Marsh JD, Somerville LE, Vasarhelyi EM, Lanting BA. Use of the Corail stem for revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of clinical outcomes and cost. J Cancer Chir. 2019;62:78–82.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mehran N, North T, Laker M. Failure of a modular hip implant at the stem-sleeve interface. Orthopedics. 2013;36:e978–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Imbuldeniya AM, Walter WK, Zicat BA, Walter WL. 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. 2014;96-B:730–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moreta J, Uriare I, Foruria X, Lorono A, Agirre U, Jáurequi I, Martinez-de Los Mozos JL. Medium term outcomes of the S-ROM modular femoral stem in revision hip replacement. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:1327–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bolognesi MP, Pietrobon R, Clifford PE, Parker VT. Comparison of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve and a porous-coated sleeve with a modular revision hip stem. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86-A:2720–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bono JV, McCarthy JC, Lee J-A, Carangei RJ, Turner RH. Fixation with a modular stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:131–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cameron HU. The two- to six-year results with a proximally modular noncemented total hip replacement used in hip revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cameron HU. Modulare Schäfte in der Hüftprothesenrevisionschirurgie. Orthopäde. 2001;30:287–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chandler H, Clark J, Murphy S, Mc Carthy J, Penenberg B, Danylchuk K, Roehr B. Reconstruction of major segmental loss of the proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chandler HP, Ayres DK, Tan RC, Anderson LC, Varma AK. Revision total hip replacement using the S-ROM femoral component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:130–40.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Christie MJ, DeBoer DK, Tingstad EM, Capps M, Brinson MF, Trick LW. Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty, 4- to 7-year results. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:840–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McCarthy JC, Lee J. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:166–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park YS, Lim SJ. Long-term comparison of porous and hydroxyapatite sleeves in femoral revision using the S-ROM modular stem. Hip Int. 2010;20:179–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Piao S, Zhou YG, Du YQ, Ma HY, Sun JY, Gao ZS, Peng YW, Wu WM. Clinical results in early and mid term of using the S-ROM femoral stem in revision. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2017;30:322–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith JA, Dunn HK, Manaster BJ. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty, 2-to 5-year results with a modular titanium alloy stem. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:194–201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Walter WL, Walter WK, Zicat B. Clinical and radiographic assessment of a modular cementless ingrowth femoral stem system for revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:172–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wei-Li, Lian YY, Yue Q, Yue WJ, Zhao CB, Meng QG. Revision hip arthroplasties with use of the modular S-ROM prosthesis. Indian J Med Sci. 2011;65:444–51.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li H, Chen F, Wan Z, Chen Q. Comparison of clinical efficacy between modular cementless stem prostheses and coated cementless long-stem prostheses on bone defect in hip revision arthroplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:670–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bhagia UT, Corpe RS, Steflink DE, Young TR, Schnars J. Cementless S_ROM femoral component: effect of stem length on stability after extended proximal osteotomy. J South Orthop Assoc. 2001;10:6–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Spitzer AI. The S-ROM cementless femoral stem: history and literature review. Orthopedics. 2005;28:S1117–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dyreborg K, Petersen MM, Balle SS, Kjersgaard AG, Solgaard S. Observational study of a new modular femoral revision system. World J Orthop. 2020;11:167–76.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lombardi Lombardi AV, Berend KR Jr, Mallory TH, Adams JB. Modular calcar replacement prosthesis with strengthened taper junction in total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2007;16:206–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pelt CE, Stagg ML, van Dine C, Anderson MB, Peters CL, Gililland JM. Early outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with a modern modular femoral revision stem in 65 consecutive cases. Arthroplasty Today. 2019;5:106–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE. The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE. Revision total hip arthroplasty. Long-term results without cement. Clin Orthop North Am. 1993;24:635–44.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1999;369:230–42.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(Suppl):134–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S, Rastogi D. High survivorship with cementless stems and cortical strut allografts for large femoral bone defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:2990–3000.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahmet S, Ismet KO, Mehmet E, Eren Y, Remzi T, Önder Y. Midterm results of the cylindrical fully porous-coated uncemented femoral stem in revision patients with Paprosky I-IIIA femoral defects. J Orthop Surg. 2018;26:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Aribinidi R, Barba M, Solomon MI, Arp P, Paprosky W. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:319–29.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chen WM, McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Extended slide trochanteric osteotomy for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2000;82-A:1215–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ding ZC, Ling TX, Yuan MC, Qin YZ, Mou P, Wang HY, Zhou ZK. Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):218.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Engh CA, Culpepper WJ, Kassapidis E. Revision of loose cementless femoral prostheses to larger porous coated components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;347:168–78.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems in femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop. 2004;420:148–59.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5-to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE, Lauro GR. Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty done without cement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1994;76-A:965–73.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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 Arthroplasty. 2001;16(Suppl):188–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141–50.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Moreland JR, Moreno MA. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:194–201.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Paprosky WG, Weeden SH, Bowling JW Jr. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:181–93.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sugimura T, Tohkura A. THA revision with extensively porous-coated stems. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:11–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL, Asayama I. Durable fixation with a modern fully hydroxyapatite-coated long stem in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:355–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk bei schwerem Knochenverlust. Orthopäde. 1987;16:295–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Baktir A, Karaaslan F, Gencer K, Karaoglu S. Femoral revision using the Wagner SL revision stem: a single-surgeon experience featuring 11-19 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:827–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bircher HP, Riede U, Lüem M, Ochsner PE. Der Wert der SL-Revisionsprothese nach Wagner zur Überbrückung großer Femurdefekte. Technik und Resultate. Orthopäde. 2001;30:294–303.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Böhm P, Bischel O. Das zementfreie diaphysäre Verankerungsprinzip für den Hüftschaftwechsel bei großen Knochendefekten—Analyse von 12 Jahren Erfahrung mit dem Wagner-Revisionsschaft. Z Orthop. 2001;139:229–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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. 2001;83-A:1023–31.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Boisgard S, Moreau PE, Tixier M, 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 Reparative Appar Mot. 2001;87:147–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ferruzzi A, Calderoni P, Gualtieri G. Hip prostheses revisions with LS stem: indications and results. Chir Organi Mov. 2003;88:285–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 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 or 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:515–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hartwig CH, Böhm P, Czech U, Reize P. The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:5–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hellmsn MD, Kearns SM, Bohl DD, Haughom BD, Levine BR. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a monoblock splined tapered grit-blasted titanium stem. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:3698–703.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R. The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores femoral bone structure. Int Orthop. 2000;24:139–42.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H, Milbrink J, Sahlstedt B. The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:541–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Lyu SR. Use of Wagner cementless self-locking stems for massive bone loss in hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003;11:43–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Mandellos GH, Kotsovolos H, Handes M, et al. Long distal fitting Wagner stem in failed total hip arthroplasty with extensive bone loss. Acta Orthop Trumat Hellencia. 2001;52:285–9.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Mantelos G, Koulouvaris P, Kotsovolos H, Xenakis T. Consistent new bone formation in 95 revisions: average 9-year follow-up. Orthopedics. 2008;31:654.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Regis D, Sandri A, Bonetti I, Graggion M, Bartolozzi P. Femoral revision with Wagner tapered stem. A ten-to 15 year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1320–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sandiford NA, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems osseointegrate reliably at short term in revision THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:186–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Singh SP, Bhalodiya HP. Results of Wagner SL revision stem with impaction bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2013;47:357–63.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Wagner H. Revisionsprothese für das Hüftgelenk. Orthopäde. 1989;18:438–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Wagner H, Wagner M. Femur-Revisionsprothese. Z Orthop. 1993;131:574–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Warren PJ, Thompson P, Flechter MDA. Transfemoral implantation of the Wagner SL stem. The abolition of subsidence and enhancement of osteotomy union rate using Dall-Miles cables. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002;122:557–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Wehrli U. Wagner-Revisionsprothesenschaft. Z Unfallchir Versicherungsmed. 1991;84:216–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wilkes RA, Birch J, Pearse MF, Lee M, Atkins RM. The Wagner technique for revision arthroplasty of the hip: a review of 24 cases. J Orthop Rheumatol. 1994;7:196–8.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Zang J, Uchiyama K, Moriya M, Fuksuhima K, Takahira N, Takaso M. Long-term outcomes of Wagner self-locking stem with bone allograft for Paprosky type II and III bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty: a mean 15.7 year follow-up. J Orthop Surg. 2019;27:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ngu AWT, Rowan FE, Carli AV, Haddad FS. Single 3° tapered fluted femoral stems demonstrate low subsidence at mid-term follow-up in severe bone deficiency. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7:725.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Gabor JA, Padilla A, Feng JE, Schnaser E, Lujes WG, Park KJ, Incova S, Vigdorchil J, Schwarzkopf R. Short-term outcomes with the REDAPT monolithic, tapered, fluted, grit-blasted, forged titanium revision femoral stem. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B:191–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Restrepo C, Mashadi M, Parvizi J, Austin MS, Hozack WJ. Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:476–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kessler S, Kinkel S, Kafer W, Puhl W. Revision total hip arthroplasty: how do metaphyseal onset, diaphyseal fill and a three-point-stem-fixation influence the postoperative subsidence of a revision straight-stem? Z Orthop. 2002;140:595–602.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 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;21:372–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Fink B, Hahn M, Fuerst M, Thybaut L, Delling G. Principle of fixation of the cementless modular revision stem Revitan. Unfallchirurg. 2005;108:1029–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S, Schulz MS, Fuerst M. A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;462:105–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Fink B, Grossman A, Schubring S, Schulz MS, Fuerst M. Short-term results of hip revisions with a curved cementless modular stem in association with the surgical approach. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:65–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M. Distal interlocking screws with a modular revision stem for revision total hip arthroplasty in severe bone defects. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:759–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with porous-coated modular stem. 5 to 10 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1310–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Jibodh SR, Schwarzkopf R, Anthony SG, Malchau H, Dempsey KE, Estik DM II. Revision hip arthroplasty with a modular cementless stem: mid-term follow up. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1167–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 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 

  94. Holt G, McCaul J, Jones B, Ingram R, Stark A. Outcome after femoral revision using the restoration cone/conical femoral revision stem. Orthopaedics. 2011;34:11.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Desai RR, Malkani AI, Hitt KD, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral implant in Paprosky III and IV femoral bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1492–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Dzaja I, Lyons MC, McCalden RW, Naudie DDD, Howard JL. Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular revision system in cases of severe bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1594–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Stimac JD, Boles J, Parkes N, Della Valle AG, Boettner F, Westrich GH. Revision total hip arthroplasty with modular femoral stems. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:2167–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Palumbo BT, Morrison KL, Baumgarten AS, Stein MI, Haidukewych GJ, Bernasek TL. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:690–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Riesgo AM, Hochfelder JP, Adler EM, Slover JD, Specht LM, Iorio R. Survivorship and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty with a mid-modular femoral stem. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:2260–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Smith MA, Deakin AH, Allen D, Baines J. Midterm outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular revision hip system. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:446–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Picado CHF, Savarese A, dos Santos Cardamoni V, Sugo AT, Garica FL. Clinical, radiographic, and survivorship analysis of a modular fluted tapered stem in revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg. 2019;28:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Park YS, Moon YM, Lim SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:993–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 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;25:348–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Canella RP, de Alencar PGC, Ganev GG, de Vinceni LF. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular cementless distal fixation prosthesis: the ZMR hip system. Clinical and radiographic analysis of 30 cases. Rev Bras Orthop. 2010;45:279–85.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Role and results of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 Suppl A):58–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 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;471:454–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Rieger B, Ilchmann T, Bollinger L, Stoffel KK, Zwicky L, Clauss M. Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented modular femoral component. Hip Int. 2018;28:84–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Wronka KS, Cnudde PHJ. Midterm results following uncemented, modular, fully porous coated stem used in revision hip arthroplasty: comparison of two stem systems. J Orthop. 2016;13:298–300.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Kwong KL, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Murphy SB, Rodriguez J. Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:115–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Tamvakopoulos GS, Servant CT, Clark G, Ivory JP. Medium-term follow-up series using a modular distal fixation prosthesis to address proximal femoral bone deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5- to 9-year follow-up study. Hip Int. 2007;17:143–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Rodirguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:751–8.

    Google Scholar 

  113. 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 Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1409–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Schofer MD, Efe T, Heyse TJ, Timmesfeld N, Velte R, Hinrichs F, Schmitt J. Zementfreier Femurschaftwechsel mit einem modularen Hüftendoprothesenrekonstruktionsschaft. Orthopäde. 2010;39:209–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J. A modular cementless stem vs. cemented long-stem prostheses in revision surgery of the hip. A population-based study from the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:136–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Skyttä ET, Eskelinen A, Remes V. Successful femoral reconstruction with a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. Scand J Surg. 2012;101:222–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Klauser W, Bangert Y, Lubinus P, Kendoff D. Medium-term follow-up of a modular tapered titanium stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a single-surgeon experience. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:84–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Ammanatullah 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-B:312–7.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Zhang ZD, Zhuo Q, Zhang QM, Song JL, Yang F, Chen JY. Application of modular cementless femoral stems in complex revision hip arthroplasty. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2015;28:198–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Hashem A, Al-Azzawi A, Riyadh H, Mukka S, Syed-Noor A. Cementless, modular, distally fixed stem in hip revision arthroplasty: a single-center study of 132 consecutive hips. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:45–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Hancock DS, Sharplin PK, Larsen PD, Phillips FT. Early radiological and functional outcomes for a cementless press-fit design modular femoral stem revision system. Hip Int. 2019;29:35–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 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(7):889–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Köster G, Walde TA, Willert H-G. Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:964–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Artiaco S, boggio F, Titolo P, Zoccola K, Bianchi P, Bellomo F. Clinical experience in femoral revision with the modular Profemur R stem. Hip Int. 2011;21:39–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Pattyn C, Mulliez A, Verdonk R, Audenaert E. Revision hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular tapered stem. Int Orthop. 2012;36:35–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Siebert C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop. 2000;24(3):134–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. 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 Jun;124(5):306–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Schuh A, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G. Titanium modular revision prosthesis stem in revision hip prosthesis. Orthopade. 2004 Jan;33(1):63–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Mumme T, Müller-Rath AS, Wirtz DC. Zementfreier Femurschaftwechsel in der Moularen Revisions Prothese MRP-Titan-Revisionsschaft. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19:56–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Wimmer MD, Randau TM, Deml MC, Ascherl R, Nöth U, Forst R, Gravius N, Wirtz D, Gravius S. Impaction grafting in femur in cementless modular revision total hip arthroplasty: a descriptive outcome analysis of 243 cases with the MRP-titan revision implant. BMC Musculoskel Dis. 2013;14:19.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Wirtz D, Gravius S, Ascherl R, Thorweihe M, Forst R, Noeth U, Maus UM, Wimmer MD, Zeiler G, Deml MC. Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered, fluted titanium sem. 5- to- 16-years results in 163 cases. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:562–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty. A comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:491–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schulz MS. Bone regeneration in the proximal femur following implantation of modular revision stems with distal fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:465–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd Fink .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fink, B. (2022). Cementless Revision Stems. In: Femoral Revision Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84820-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)