Implant breakage and revision factors for modular fluted tapered stems in revision total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Purpose:

Modular stems in revision total hip arthroplasties allow diaphyseal fixation and optimal restoration of the architecture of the proximal femur. Several studies report metaphyseal implant breakage having a negative impact on survivorship. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of an uncemented modular fluted tapered stem (MFT) in revision surgery.

Methods:

In a retrospective study, 316 patients who had revision surgery using the same design of MFT implant (Modular Revision Stem [MRS], Lima Corporate, Italy) between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Patients were male in 51% of cases and mean age was 74 years. Indications were 110 periprosthetic fractures, 98 periprosthetic joint infection, 97 aseptic loosening, 10 instability and 1 other cause. Survivorship, complications, clinical and radiographic outcomes, were assessed. Mean follow-up was 5 years.

Results:

There was no implant breakage. At 5-year follow-up, the survivorship, free from revision for aseptic loosening and free of revision for any reason were 96% and 87%, respectively. At last follow-up (8 years), these figures were 92% and 71%, respectively. 31 implants were revised. The risk of revision for any cause was higher for extreme length metaphyseal implants, hazard ratio was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.82–7.52). A mean stem subsidence of 9 mm was noted in 37 cases; 4 were revised for aseptic loosening. The Harris Hip Score at final follow-up was 82.

Conclusions:

At 5-year follow-up, the MFT implant showed a good survivorship and outcomes with no specific complications. Unlike literature reports, no specific complications occurred with this design. Stem junction positioning and therefore metaphyseal length may be key to optimise long-term survivorship. However, a longer follow-up is needed as implant breakage is more often seen after long implantation times.

Keywords

Implant breakage metaphyseal length modular fluted tapered stem revision total hip arthroplasty subsidence survivorship

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kurtz

Ong

Schmier

, et al. Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 195–203.

Abdel

Houdek

Watts

, et al. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femoral fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 468–474.

Nemes

Gordon

Rogmark

, et al. Projections of total hip replacement in Sweden from 2013 to 2030. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 238–243.

Amanatullah

Howard

Siman

, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone loss using a fluted tapered modular femoral component. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 312–317.

Richards

Duncan

Masri

, et al. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 491–496.

Van Houwelingen

Duncan

Masri

, et al. High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 454–462.

Houdek

Perry

Wyles

, et al. Use of a modular tapered fluted femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty following resection of a previously infected total hip: minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 435–438.

Abdel

Cottino

Larson

, et al. Modular fluted tapered stems in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 873–881.

Parry

Hernandez

Berry

, et al. Risk factors for subsidence of modular fluted tapered stems used during revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip fractures. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 2967–2970.

10.

Abdel

Lewallen

Berry

DJ.

Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 599–603.

11.

Fink

Grossmann

Singer

Hip revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 and B3. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 206–211.

12.

Dumoulin

Sabau

Goetzmann

, et al. Assessment of a press-fit proximal femoral modular reconstruction implant (PFMR^®) at 14.5 years. A 48-case series with a disturbing rate of implant fracture. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2018; 104: 317–323.

13.

Lakstein

Eliaz

Levi

, et al. Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 57–65.

14.

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.

15.

Della Valle

Paprosky

. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A(Supp. 4): 1–6.

16.

Gruen

McNeice

Amstutz

HC.

‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; 141: 17–27.

17.

Engh

Massin

Suthers

KE.

Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 257: 107–128.

18.

Girard

Roche

Wavreille

, et al. Stem subsidence after total hip revision: 183 cases at 5.9 years follow-up. Rev Chir Orthopédique Traumatol 2011; 97: 115–121.

19.

Ovesen

Emmeluth

Hofbauer

, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 348–354.

20.

Weiss

Beckman

Enocson

, et al. Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 16–23.

21.

Rodriguez

Deshmukh

Robinson

, et al. Reproducible fixation with a tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty at 8-15 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 214–218.

22.

Fink

Urbansky

Schuster

Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 889–895.

23.

Wirtz

Gravius

Ascherl

, et al. Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered, fluted titanium stem. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 562–569.

24.

Huang

Zhou

Shao

, et al. What is the difference between modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 3108–3113.

25.

Picado

CHF

Savarese

Cardamoni

VDS

, et al. Clinical, radiographic, and survivorship analysis of a modular fluted tapered stem in revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2020; 28: 2309499019891638.

26.

Zheng

Zhang

, et al. Mid- to long-term outcomes of cementless modular, fluted, tapered stem for massive femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg 2021; 13: 989–1000.

27.

Rieger

Ilchmann

Bolliger

, et al. Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented modular femoral component. Hip Int 2018; 28: 84–89.

28.

Marfo

Berend

Morris

, et al. Mid-term results of modular tapered femoral stems in revision total hip Arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2019; 35: 295–300.

29.

Konan

Garbuz

Masri

, et al. Modular tapered titanium stems in revision arthroplasty of the hip: the risk and causes of stem fracture. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 50–53.

30.

Norman

Iyengar

Svensson

, et al. Fatigue fracture in dual modular revision total hip arthroplasty stems. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 850–855.

31.

Efe

Schmitt

Analyses of prosthesis stem failures in noncemented modular hip revision prostheses. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 665.e7–665.e12.

32.

Krull

Morlock

Bishop

NE.

Factors influencing taper failure of modular revision hip stems. Med Eng Phys 2018; 54: 65–73.

33.

Fink

What can the surgeon do to reduce the risk of junction breakage in modular revision stems?

Arthroplast Today 2018; 4: 306–309.

34.

Jang

Lee

Min

, et al. Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using modular cementless femoral stems. Hip Pelvis 2015; 27: 135–140.

35.

Park

Lee

Park

, et al. A distal fluted, proximal modular femoral prosthesis in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 932–938.

36.

Van Laarhoven

Vles

van Haaren

, et al. Tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stems in Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fractures: an analysis of 87 consecutive revisions. Hip Int 2021; 31: 555–561.

37.

Le Béguec

Canovas

Roche

, et al. Uncemented femoral stems for revision surgery. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2015.

38.

Berry

DJ.

Femoral revision: distal fixation with fluted, tapered grit-blasted stems. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17: 142–146.

39.

Rinaldi

Marenghi

Vaienti

The Wagner prosthesis for femoral reconstruction by transfemoral approach. Chir Organi Mov 1994; 79: 353–356.

40.

Boisgard

Moreau

Tixier

, et al. Bone reconstruction, leg length discrepancy, and dislocation rate in 52 Wagner revision total hip arthroplasties at 44-month follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2001; 87: 147–154. French.