Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Porous-coated Modular Stem: 5 to 10 Years Followup

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

The ZMR® porous stem is a modular cylindrical porous-coated femoral stem for revision THA. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of this stem at midterm followup. We prospectively reviewed 69 patients (72 femoral revisions) treated with the stem. The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in 61 (85%), periprosthetic fractures in five (7%), infection in three (4%), dislocation in two (3%), and fractured stem in one (1%). Minimum followup was 60 months (mean, 85 months; range, 60–114 months). The survival rate with revision for any reason as an end point was 93.8%. Mean preoperative Harris hip score was 39 points, and mean Harris hip score at last followup was 72 points. Four (5.5%) stems required rerevision, two (2.8%) for loosening, one (1.4%) for fracture at the modular junction, and one (1.4%) for infection. Subsidence occurred in eight (11%) patients, in the range of 5 to 25 mm. Two (2.89%) of the stems that subsided were symptomatic and progressive. The ZMR® porous stem is a versatile system that offers a reliable fixation and an off-the-shelf solution for a multitude of femoral reconstruction challenges.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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. 2A–B
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barrack RL. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):98–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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;83:1023–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:148–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS. 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. 1985;67:1074–1085.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cameron HU. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):138–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cameron HU. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):101–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dalury DF, Gonzales RA, Adams MJ. Minimum 5-year results in 96 consecutive hips treated with a tapered titanium stem system. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print].

  8. Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Sr. Distal ingrowth components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:135–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris WH. 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. 1969;51:737–755.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hungerford DS, Jones LC. The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:12–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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;23:220–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):94–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG. Current status of impaction allografting for revision of a femoral component. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:111–118.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FH, Chao EY, Wallrichs SL. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351–356.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;429:215–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McCarthy JC, Lee JA. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:166–169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mroczkowski ML, Hertzler JS, Humphrey SM, Johnson T, Blanchard CR. Effect of impact assembly on the fretting corrosion of modular hip tapers. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:271–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mulroy WF, Harris WH. 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. 1996;78:325–330.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodriguez 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. 2008 Oct 31. [Epub ahead of print].

  26. Safir O, Kellett CF, Flint M, Backstein D, Gross AE. Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:206–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Davis A, Resig S, Gross AE. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1040–1046.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner H, Wagner M. Cone prosthesis for the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:88–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Matthew MacDonald for help in data collection and calculation of hip scores and David Razao for help in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Department, Division of Arthroplasty, Mount Sinai Hospital, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476A, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X5, Canada

    Dror Lakstein MD, David Backstein MD, MEd, FRCSC, Oleg Safir MD, FRCSC, Yona Kosashvili MD, MHA & Allan E. Gross MD, FRCSC

Authors
  1. Dror Lakstein MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Backstein MD, MEd, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oleg Safir MD, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yona Kosashvili MD, MHA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Allan E. Gross MD, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dror Lakstein MD.

Additional information

One of the authors (AEG) serves as a consultant for Zimmer, Inc, Warsaw, IN.

Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Lakstein, D., Backstein, D., Safir, O. et al. Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Porous-coated Modular Stem: 5 to 10 Years Followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468, 1310–1315 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0937-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0937-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation