Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Three to seven year follow-up of a tapered modular femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Modular femoral prostheses can provide independent distal fixation and intraoperative flexibility and are being used increasingly, especially in patients with proximal femoral bone defects. This retrospective clinical study evaluated whether modular prostheses were effective and reliable implants for femoral revision.

Method

This case series consisted of 58 patients who underwent hip revision with a tapered modular femoral prosthesis at our institution between 2004 and 2008. Mean patient age at surgery was 64 years (range 18–86 years). Femoral bone defects before revision surgery were evaluated using the Paprosky classification. All patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years (mean 4.3 years, range 3–7 years) with clinical and radiographic evaluation. Re-revisions and complications were also recorded.

Results

Two stems required re-revision, one each for recurrent deep infection and periprosthetic fracture. At last follow-up, the Harris Hip Score and Visual Analog Pain Scores had improved significantly, the median radiographic stem migration was 1.6 mm, leg length discrepancy was corrected in 64 % of the patients and osseointegration occurred in 90 %. Complications included intraoperative fracture in 10 (17 %) patients and hip dislocation in 2 (3 %).

Conclusion

Modular femoral components can improve hip function, provide distal fixation, equalize leg length, and result in fewer complications when used to revise failed femoral components.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K et al (2005) Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1487–1497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J et al (2009) Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004. J Arthroplasty 24:195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulroy WF, Harris WH (1996) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:325–330

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Haydon CM, Mehin R, Burnett S et al (2004) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of a cemented femoral component. Results at a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1179–1185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Woolson ST, Delaney TJ (1995) Failure of a proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10(Suppl):S22–S28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mulliken BD, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (1996) Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4-to-6-year review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME et al (1996) Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplast 11:411–418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG (1997) 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplast 12:839–847

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year- results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Engh CA Jr, Young AM, Engh CA Sr et al (2003) Clinical consequences of stress shielding after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:157–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bohm P, Bischel O (2001) 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 83-A:1023–1031

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bohm P, Bischel O (2004) The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:148–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gutierrez Del Alamo J, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Castellanos V et al (2007) Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with the Wagner SL revision stem: a 5-year to 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 22:515–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berry DJ (2002) Femoral revision: distal fixation with fluted, tapered grit-blasted stems. J Arthroplast 17:142–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Achermann Y, Vogt M, Leunig M et al (2010) Improved diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection by multiplex PCR of sonication fluid from removed implants. J Clin Microbiol 48:1208–1214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghanem E, Antoci V Jr, Pulido L et al (2009) The use of receiver operating characteristics analysis in determining erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein levels in diagnosing periprosthetic infection prior to revision total hip arthroplasty. Int J Infect Dis 13:444–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:203–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM et al (1985) Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1074–1085

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2004) Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:227–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Restrepo C, Mashadi M, Parvizi J et al (2011) Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:476–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A et al (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26:16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB et al (2009) Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplast 24:751–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy SB, Rodriguez J (2004) Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplast 19:115–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P (2003) A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 18:94–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ovesen O, Emmeluth C, Hofbauer C et al (2010) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation. J Arthroplasty 25:348–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Patel PD, Klika AK, Murray TG et al (2010) Influence of technique with distally fixed modular stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 25:926–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kang MN, Huddleston JI, Hwang K (2008) Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 23:220–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O et al (2009) Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1310–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M (2010) Distal interlocking screws with a modular revision stem for revision total hip arthroplasty in severe bone defects. J Arthroplast 25:759–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Warren PJ, Thompson P, Fletcher MD (2002) 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 122:557–560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Procenca A, Cabral R (2005) Revision of the femoral side in total hip replacement. Eur Instr Course Lect 7:143

    Google Scholar 

  34. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplast 22:993–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Köster G, Walde TA, Willert HG (2008) Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplast 23:964–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA et al (2010) Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:491–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pierson JL, Crowninshield RD, Earles DR (2005) Fatigue fracture of a modular revision femoral component: a report of 40 cases. AAOS, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  38. Busch CA, Charles MN, Haydon CM et al (2005) Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1333–1336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Mallory TH et al (2007) Modular calcar replacement prosthesis with strengthened taper junction in total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 16:206–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, P. R. China

    Long Wang, Zixun Dai, Ting Wen, Mingqing Li & Yihe Hu

Authors
  1. Long Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zixun Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ting Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mingqing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yihe Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yihe Hu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, L., Dai, Z., Wen, T. et al. Three to seven year follow-up of a tapered modular femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133, 275–281 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1644-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1644-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation