Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is the Survivorship of Fully Coated Femoral Components in Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

  • Symposium: 2014 Hip Society Proceedings
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

Femoral revision using fully coated femoral components offers distinct advantages in patients with notable bone loss. With the increasing concerns being raised about the problems of stem modularity, the results and complications of revision arthroplasty using devices with limited modularity are important.

Questions/purposes

We therefore asked: (1) What is the frequency of infection, aseptic loosening, and reoperations after use of these components? (2) What is the frequency of intraoperative fracture of the femur when using these components and are there any identifiable factors related to these fractures? (3) What is the 10-year survivorship of these components, and are there any identifiable factors related to survival and rerevision?

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed prospectively obtained data on 96 patients undergoing 104 revisions with fully coated components of two different manufacturers; six patients had died (6%) and six were lost to followup (6%) before 2 years. Data on intraoperative fracture, aseptic loosening, and reoperation were analyzed. Ninety-two hips, with a minimum followup of 2 years (mean, 8 years; range, 2–16 years), were evaluated for radiographic evidence of loosening. Intraoperative fracture frequency and Kaplan-Meier survivorship was calculated to 10 years for the entire cohort of 104 hips. Demographic, radiographic, and operative factors associated with implant survival and intraoperative fracture were analyzed using chi-square and Wilcoxon tests.

Results

There were three infections, nine hips (10%) had femoral component loosening (six rerevised), and there were seven other reoperations. Intraoperative complications in 17 hips (17%; 11 diaphyseal fractures, four perforations, two proximal fractures) were treated with allograft strut and cable fixation in 14 hips. Intraoperative femoral complication was more likely with the use of a curved stem [17 of 76, 22% curved; 0 of 28 straight stems (p = 0.005)]. With failure defined as femoral component revision for aseptic loosening or radiographic evidence of loosening, implant survival was 88% at 10 years. Those femurs with Paprosky Grades 3B and 4 defects had a higher risk of loosening (3 of 10 for Grades 3B and 4 versus 6 of 94 hips [6%] for Grades 1, 2, 3A; p = 0.03).

Conclusions

As concerns about stems with more modularity become more prominent, we find the durability of the approach using fully coated femoral components reassuring, but we will continue to follow these patients in the longer term.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions 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. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Archibeck MJ, Rosenberg AG, Berger RA, Silverton CD. Trochanteric osteotomy and fixation during total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11:163–173.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chappell JD, Lachiewicz PF. Fracture of the femur in revision hip arthroplasty with a fully porous-coated component. J Arthroplasty. 2005:20:234–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:55–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Egan KJ, DiCesare PE. Intra-operative complications of revision hip arthroplasty using fully porous coated straight cobalt-chrome femoral stem. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(suppl):45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH, Engh CA. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision. A choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(suppl 1):106–110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim YH, Kim JS. Revision hip arthroplasty using strut allografts and fully porous-coated stems. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:454–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Fixation, survival, and dislocation of jumbo acetabular components in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:543–548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE. Revision total hip arthroplasty: long-term results without cement. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24:635–644.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:491–496.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG. Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:601–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Thomsen PB, Jensen NJF, Kampmann J, Hansen TB. Revision hip arthroplasty with an extensively porous-coated stem-excellent long-term results also in severe bone stock loss. Hip Int. 2013;23:353–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(suppl 1):134–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zalzal R, Gandi R, Petrucelli D, Winemaker MJ, deBeer J. Fractures at the tip of long-stem prostheses used for revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:741–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Richard Sloane, MPH for the statistical analyses and Mr Stephen Perlman, MLS for assistance with the literature search.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Paul F. Lachiewicz MD

  2. Chapel Hill Orthopedics Surgery & Sports Medicine, 101 Conner Drive, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA

    Paul F. Lachiewicz MD & Elizabeth S. Soileau BSN

Authors
  1. Paul F. Lachiewicz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth S. Soileau BSN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul F. Lachiewicz MD.

Additional information

The institution of the authors (PFL, ESS) has received funding, during the study period, from Zimmer, Inc (Warsaw, IN, USA).

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.

This project was performed at Chapel Hill Orthopedics Surgery & Sports Medicine (Chapel Hill, NC, USA) and Duke University Medical Center (Durham, NC, USA).

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lachiewicz, P.F., Soileau, E.S. What is the Survivorship of Fully Coated Femoral Components in Revision Hip Arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473, 549–554 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3689-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3689-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation