Modular Femoral Tapered Revision Stems in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Background: Modular component options can assist the surgeon in addressing complex femoral reconstructions in total hip arthroplasty by allowing for customization of version control and proximal to distal sizing. We review the early clinical results of a single modular femoral revision system that offers 3 proximal body types, 5 distal stem geometries, and a wide range of offset, sizing and auxiliary options.
Methods: A query of our practice’s arthroplasty registry revealed 60 patients (61 hips) who signed an IRB-approved general research consent allowing retrospective review, and underwent total hip arthroplasty performed with the modular femoral revision system between December 2009 and April 2012. There were 35 men (58%) and 25 women (42%). Mean age was 65.1 years (range, 35-94) and BMI was 31.3 kg.m2 (range, 14-53). Procedures were complex primary in 1 hip, conversion in 6 (10%), revision in 32 (53%), and two-staged exchange for infection in 22 (33%). Two-thirds of procedures included complete acetabular revision (n=40), while 31% (19) involved liner change only and 2 were isolated femoral revisions.
Results: At an average follow-up of 1.5 years (maximum: 3.7 years) there have been no revisions or failures of the femoral component. Average Harris hip scores (0 to 100 possible) improved from 44.2 preoperatively to 66.0 at most recent evaluation, while the pain component (0 to 44 possible) improved from 15.8 to 31.2. Complications requiring surgical intervention included intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture in one patient returned to the operating suite same day for open reduction internal fixation, which further required incision and debridement for superficial infection at 1 year postoperative; and two patients with dislocation and fracture of the greater trochanter treated with open reduction, revision of the head and liner, and application of cerclage cables, one of which required removal of a migrated claw 10 months later followed 2 weeks subsequently with incision and debridement for a non-healing wound. Postoperative radiographs were available for review for 59 THA in 58 patients. Analysis of the femoral component revealed satisfactory findings in 50 hips (85%) while 9 had radiographic changes that included bone deficit, osteolysis, or radiolucency in one or more zones.
Conclusions: The early results of this modular femoral revision system are promising for the treatment of the deficient femur in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. Patients with radiographic changes are advised to return for regular clinical and radiographic follow-up. Survival of the modular femoral component in this series was 100% at mean follow-up of 1.5 years and up to 3.7 years. While HHS clinical and pain scores were somewhat low at most recent evaluation, they were significantly improved over preoperative levels.
Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203-9.
Mallory TH. Preparation of the proximal femur in cementless total hip revision. Clin Orthop. 1988;235:47-60.
Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Mallory TH, Adams JB. Modular calcar replacement prosthesis with strengthened taper junction in total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2007;16:206-9.
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.
Lakstein D, Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Safir O, Lee P, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a modular tapered stem. Hip Int. 2010;20(2):136-42.
Lakstein D, Eliaz N, Levi O, Backstein D, Kosashvili Y, Safir O, Gross AE. Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(1):57-65.
Efe T, Schmitt J. Analyses of prosthesis stem failures in noncemented modular hip revision prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(4):665.
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 Jun;51(4):737-55.
Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jun;(141):17-27.
Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973 Dec;55(8):1629-32.
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.
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.
Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Role and results of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 Suppl A):58-60.
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.
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(2):275-81.
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. 2009;24(5):751-8.
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.
Restrepo C, Mashadi M, Parvizi J, Austin MS, Hozack WJ. Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):476-82.
Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Mar 26 (Epub ahead of print).
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. 2013 May 30 (Epub ahead of print).
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2014 Benjamin Frye, MD, Keith Berend, MD, Michael Morris, MD, Joanne Adams, BFA, Adolph Lombardi, Jr., MD, FACS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License Agreement:
Authors who publish with the Reconstructive Review agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work. Reconstructive Review follows the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC. This license allows anyone to download works, build upon the material, and share them with others for non-commercial purposes as long as they credit the senior author, Reconstructive Review, and the Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation (JISRF). An example credit would be: "Courtesy of (senior author's name), Reconstructive Review, JISRF, Chagrin Falls, Ohio". While works can be downloaded and shared they cannot be used commercially.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.