Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Adult Hip - Master Case Series and Techniques

  • 1094 Accesses

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. Management of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2015;25(4):380–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(4):517–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:119–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Sr. Distal ingrowth components. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 2004;420:135–41.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Cementless femoral revision: the role of monoblock versus modular stems. Curr Orthop. 2006;20:171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Paprosky WG, Weeden SH. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001;24(9):871–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:599–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wagner H, Wagner M. Cone prosthesis for the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120(1–2):88–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R. The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores femoral bone structure. Int Orthop. 2000;24(3):139.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Orthopaedic Unit, Aristotle University Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Eustathios Kenanidis M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc.

  2. Academic Orthopaedic Unit, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Aristotle University Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Eleftherios Tsiridis M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., F.R.C.S.

  3. Department of Joint Pathology, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology, Kharkiv, Ukraine

    Stanislav Bondarenko M.D., Ph.D., Volodymyr Filippenko M.D. & Volodymyr Mezentsev M.D., Ph.D.

  4. Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Saint Petersburg, Russia

    Rashid Tikhilov M.D., Ph.D., Alexey Denisov M.D., Ph.D. & Igor Shubnyakov M.D., Ph.D.

  5. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    M. Ollivier M.D., Ph.D., S. Parratte M.D., Ph.D. & J.-N. Argenson M.D., Ph.D.

  6. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Unit, Hospital Nord, Marseille, France

    X. Flecher M.D., Ph.D.

  7. Aix Marseille Univ, APHM, CNRS, ISM, Sainte-Marguerite Hospital, Institute for Locomotion,, Marseille, France

    X. Flecher M.D., Ph.D.

  8. Hospital Curry Cabral, Lisbon, Portugal

    Sérgio Goncṃalves M.D., M.Sc., Thiago Aguiar M.D. & Pedro Dantas M.D.

  9. Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Lionel E. Lazaro, Lazaros A. Poultsides, Micheal B. Cross, Ivan De Martino MD, MSc, PhD, Peter K. Sculco MD, MSc, PhD & Thomas P. Sculco M.D.

  10. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

    P. J. Boscainos M.D., F.R.C.S., S. Patil F.R.C.S. & D. Meek B.Sc., M.D., F.R.C.S.

  11. Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Martin, Slovakia

    Libor Nečas M.D., Ph.D. & Marek Rovňák M.D.

Authors
  1. Eustathios Kenanidis M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleftherios Tsiridis M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., F.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stanislav Bondarenko M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Volodymyr Filippenko M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Volodymyr Mezentsev M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rashid Tikhilov M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexey Denisov M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Igor Shubnyakov M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Ollivier M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. Parratte M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. X. Flecher M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. J.-N. Argenson M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sérgio Goncṃalves M.D., M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Thiago Aguiar M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Pedro Dantas M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Lionel E. Lazaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Lazaros A. Poultsides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Micheal B. Cross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. P. J. Boscainos M.D., F.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. S. Patil F.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. D. Meek B.Sc., M.D., F.R.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Libor Nečas M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Marek Rovňák M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Ivan De Martino MD, MSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Peter K. Sculco MD, MSc, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Thomas P. Sculco M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Eleftherios Tsiridis M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., F.R.C.S. , E. Kenanidis MD, MSc, PhD , E. Tsiridis MD, PhD, FACS, FRCS , Volodymyr Filippenko M.D. or Ivan De Martino .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aristotle University Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Eleftherios Tsiridis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kenanidis, E. et al. (2018). Uncemented Femoral Revision: Cylindrical Extensively Porous-Coated and Titanium Fluted Tapered Femoral Stems. In: Tsiridis, E. (eds) The Adult Hip - Master Case Series and Techniques. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64177-5_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64177-5_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64175-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64177-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation