Skip to main content

Differences in Distal Fixated Revision Stems

  • 124 Accesses


The different stem systems have individual characteristics that the surgeon should be familiar with in order to achieve reproducible outcomes while avoiding complications such as unintentional fractures. The tapered distal components have different lengths and degrees of taper as well as different heights of their diameter designation. The curved stems have different radii. The individual characteristics and their significance are discussed in detail in this chapter.


  • Distal fixation
  • Revision stem
  • Modular
  • Taper

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

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-84821-7_8
  • Chapter length: 9 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
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. 8.1
Fig. 8.2
Fig. 8.3
Fig. 8.4
Fig. 8.5


  1. Eingärtner C, Ochs U, Egetemeyer D, Volkmann R. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with the Bicontact revision stem. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007;145(Suppl 1):S29–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Huddleston JI, Testreault MW, Yu M, Bedair H, Hansen VJ, Choi H-R, Goodman SB, Sporer MD, Della Valle CJ. Is there a benefit to modularity in “simpler” femoral revisions? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:415–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Swanson TV. Tapered, fluted femoral fixation. In: Brown TF, Cui Q, Mihalko WM, et al., editors. Arthritis and arthroplasty. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2009. p. 354–62.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pierson JL, Small SR, Rodriguez JA, et al. The effect of taper angle and spline geometry on the initial stability of tapered, splined modular titanium stems. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1254–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Heinecke M, Layer F, Matziolis G. Anchoring of a kinked uncemented femoral stem after preparation with a straight or a kinked reamer. Orthop Surg. 2019;11:705–11.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


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). Differences in Distal Fixated Revision Stems. In: Femoral Revision Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84820-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84821-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)