Abstract
Introduction
As primary total hip replacements (THRs) become more common in older patients and younger, physically active patients, the number of revision arthroplasties will also increase. Femoral bone loss, joint instability and possible infections are a challenge for a surgeon performing revision arthroplasty of the hip. The severe proximal femoral bone loss indicates the use of revision stems with a distal fixation.
Materials and methods
In this study the clinical and radiological outcomes of 79 cementless stem revisions using the MRP Titan Revision Stem with an average follow-up time of 4 years were prospectively examined.
Results
The Harris Hip Score improved from preoperative 50.8±25.2 to postoperative 86.8±13.2. In all cases healing of bony defects could be found. For stem diameters larger than 17 mm, atrophy of the proximal femur and non-progressive radiolucent lines in zones 1 and 7 according to Gruen were detected. No disadvantages or complications of the Morse taper junctions were observed, and no osteolysis was detected in this region. Primary stable fixation was achieved in all but two cases. Three cases were revised again due to periprosthetic fracture (1) and persisting infection (2).
Conclusion
Given the encouraging results with the MRP Titan Revision Stem, the principle of uncemented diaphyseal fixation appears to solve most of the technical problems in cases of significant bone loss and obviously offers good preconditions for bony restoration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barrack RL, Burke DW, Cook SD, Skinner HB, Harris WH (1993) Complications related to modularity of total hip components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:688–692
Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip arthroplasty. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632
Cameron HU (1994) The two- to six-year results with a proximally modular noncemented total hip replacement used in hip revisions. Clin Orthop 298:47–53
Cameron HU (2001) Modular shafts in hip prosthesis revision surgery. Orthopäde 30:287–293
Chandler H, Clark J, Murphy S et al (1994) Reconstruction of major segmental loss of the proximal femur in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 298:67–74
Chandler HP, Ayres DK, Tan RC, Anderson LC, Vanna AK (1995) Revision total hip replacement using the S-ROM femoral component. Clin Orthop 319:130–140
Christie MJ, DeBoer DK, Tingstad EM et al (2000) Clinical experience with a modular noncemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results. J Arthroplasty 15:840–848
Collier JP, Mayor MB, Williams IR et al (1995) The tradeoffs associated with modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop 311:91–101
Crawford SA, Siney PD, Wroblewski BM (2000) Revision of failed total hip arthroplasty with a proximal femoral modular cemented stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:684–688
Engh CA, Glassman AH, Griffin WL, Mayer JG (1988) Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 235:91–110
Gilbert JL, Buckley CA, Jacobs JJ (1993) In vivo corrosion of modular hip prosthesis components in mixed and similar metal combinations. The effect of crevice, stress, motion, and alloy coupling. J Biomed Mater Res 27:1533–1544
Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) Modes of failure of cemented stemtype femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 141:17–27
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 51:737–755
McKellop HA, Sarmiento A, Brien W, Park SH (1992) Interface corrosion of a modular head total hip prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 7:291–294
Paprosky WG, Lawrence WJ, Cameron H (1990) Femoral defect classification: clinical application. Orthop Rev [Suppl] 19:9–16
Schramm M, Wirtz DC, Holzwarth U, Pitto RP (2000) The morse taper junction in modular revision hip replacement—a biomechanical and retrieval analysis. Biomed Tech (Berl) 45:105–109
Smith JA, Dunn HK, Manaster BJ (1997) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty. 2- to 5-year results with a modular titanium alloy stem. J Arthroplasty 12:194–201
Wagner H (1997) Hip prosthesis revision with non-cemented femoral revision stem—10 years experience. Med Orth Tech 117:138–148
Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U et al (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24:134–138
Zeiler G (2001) Revisionsarthroplastik des Hüftgelenkes unter Verwendung der Modularen-Revisions-Prothese (MRP-Titan). In: Perka C, Zippel H (eds) Revisionsendoprothetik des Hüftgelenkes. Einhorn-Presse Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 185–192
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schuh, A., Werber, S., Holzwarth, U. et al. 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 124, 306–309 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0656-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-004-0656-7