Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction:

Over the past 2decades, tapered fluted modular titanium stems have gained wide acceptance due to their intraoperative versatility and encouraging early- to mid-term outcomes. This study aims to analyse the clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and survivorship of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision THA and complex femoral reconstruction with long-term follow-up.

Materials and methods:

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent revision hip surgery or complex reconstruction using a non-cemented modular tapered fluted stem at a single institution between 2009 and 2016. A total of 47 patients (48 hips) were included. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Radiographic parameters were used to assess implant stability, osteointegration, subsidence, and stress shielding. Complications were recorded, and implant survivorship was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results:

The mean age was 70 (range 37–95) years, with a mean follow-up of 9 (range 6–15) years. All patients showed functional and pain improvement after surgery, with an average increase of 38 points in the HHS (p < 0.001). Distal osteointegration was observed in 96% of cases, with a significant subsidence rate (>5 mm) of 4%. Stress shielding was present in 8% of cases. A total of 6 reoperations were recorded: 3 (6%) due to recurrent dislocation, 2 (4%) due to septic loosening, and 1 (2%) due to aseptic loosening. Overall implant survivorship was 87.5% for any reoperation, 91.7% for any stem revision, and 100% for stem revision due to mechanical failure of the femoral component.

Conclusions:

The modular tapered fluted stem proved to be a reliable and durable option in revision total hip arthroplasty and complex femoral reconstruction, with high rates of osteointegration and long-term stability. Its design allows for effective distal fixation and bone reconstruction in patients with severe femoral defects.

Keywords

Fluted modular stem revision hip arthoplasty tapered

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Learmonth

Young

Rorabeck

The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508–1519.

Bozic

Kurtz

Lau

, et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 128–133.

Wagner

. A revision prosthesis for the hip joint. Orthopade 1989;18: 438–453.

Kuruvalli

Manggat

Maheson

, et al. Intraoperative fractures in modular and nonmodular tapered stems in revision THA: a comparative study. Hip Int 2021; 31: 307–312.

Waldemar Link. MP Reconstruction Prosthesis – modular hip revision stem [Internet]. Hamburg: Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, https://www.medicalexpo.es/prod/waldemar-link/product-110890-1020076.html (accessed 12 April 2025).

Paprosky

Perona

Lawrence

JM.

Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 33–44

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(Suppl.): 214–218.

Engh

Massin

Suthers

KE.

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

Hannon

Sheehan

Duong

, et al. Modular fluted tapered stems for periprosthetic femoral fractures: excellent results in 171 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104: 1188–1196.

10.

Park

Lee

Shin

, et al. Long-term outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty using a tapered and fluted modular stem: a mean follow-up of 16 years. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37: 2420–2426.

11.

Van Houwelingen

Duncan

Masri

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

12.

Brown

Tetreault

Cipriano

, et al. Modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 555–560.

13.

Böhm

Bischel

. 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.

14.

Gutiérrez del Alamo

Garcia-Cimbrelo

Castellanos

, et al. Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with the Wagner SL Revision Stem. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 515–523.

15.

Köster

Walde

Willert

HG.

Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 964–972.

16.

Park

Lee

Park

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

17.

Rodriguez

Deshmukh

Rasquinha

, et al. Patterns of osseointegration and remodeling in femoral revision with bone loss using modular, tapered, fluted, titanium stems. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 1409–1417.e1.

18.

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.

19.

Richards

Duncan

Masri

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

20.

Feng

Zhang

Wang

, et al. Comparison of modular and non-modular tapered fluted titanium stems in femoral revision hip arthroplasty. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 13692.

21.

Park

Moon

Lim

SJ.

Revision THA using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 993–999.

22.

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.

23.

Berend

Lombardi

Jr Mallory

, et al. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty with distal fixation: 9- to 15-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; (453): 230–234.

24.

Patel

Potts

Froehlich

JA.

The dislocation rate of primary total hip arthroplasty is underestimated in clinical studies: a systematic review. Hip Int 2020; 30: 5–15.

25.

Alberton

High

Morrey

BF.

Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84: 1788–1792.

26.

Springer

Fehring

Griffin

, et al. Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 166–173.

27.

Kunutsor

Whitehouse

Blom

, et al. Re-infection outcomes following one- and two-stage surgical revision of infected hip prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0139166.

28.

Zmistowski

Karam

Durinka

, et al. Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: 2177–2184.

29.

Lora-Tamayo

Murillo

Iribarren

, et al. A large multicenter study of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prosthetic joint infections managed with implant retention. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 182–194.

30.

Abdel

Cottino

Mabry

, et al. Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 2005–2010.

31.

Lindahl

Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 2007; 38: 651–654.

32.

Bhattacharyya

Chang

Meigs

, et al. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 2658–2662.

15-year experience with tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision hip arthroplasty and complex femoral reconstruction: a long-term survivorship analysis in a tertiary care centre

Abstract

Introduction:

Materials and methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References