Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2023; 07(04): 153-160
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777060
Original Article

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Monoblock Fluted Titanium Tapered Stem Following Complex and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Christian T. Oakley
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Brandon Passano 
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Hospital – Long Island, Mineola, New York
,
William B. Lutes
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aurora Health Clinic, Kenosha, Wisconsin
,
Stephen Incavo
4   Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas
,
Kwan J. Park
4   Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Achieving femoral stem stability in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) cases is a challenging goal that monoblock fluted titanium tapered stems (FTTS) were designed to address. However, as more modern FTTS are developed, there are still questions regarding outcomes for these stems. The purpose of this study is to determine the radiographic and clinical outcomes of a modern monoblock FTTS. A multicenter retrospective observational study examined the hip databases of three institutions to obtain all monoblock FTTS with up to 5 years of radiographic follow-up. Stem subsidence and osteointegration were assessed on the most recent radiograph. All-cause re-revisions and survival of the stem at latest follow-up were recorded. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics and outcomes. Ninety-six monoblock FTTS were examined. Median clinical follow-up was 28.5 months (range: 18.0–57.8 months). Median subsidence was 1.4 mm (range: 0–15.0 mm). Sixteen (16.7%) and 3 (3.1%) stems had subsidence greater than 5 and 10 mm, respectively. Overall, thirteen hips (13.5%) required reoperations, of which 5 stems were revised (5.2%). Four stems were revised for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and one stem was explanted for exposure during acetabular revision. Kaplan–Meier analysis yielded an all-cause stem survivorship of 95.8% at 2 years and 88.5% at 4 years. Stem survivorship excluding septic causes for revision was 99.0% at both 2 and 4 years. Monoblock FTTS in complex primary and rTHA demonstrate encouraging clinical and radiographic results at up to 5 years of follow-up.

Keywords

revision - total hip arthroplasty - aseptic loosening - bone loss


Publication History

Received: 11 December 2022

Accepted: 23 August 2023

Article published online:
22 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haynes JA, Stambough JB, Sassoon AA, Johnson SR, Clohisy JC, Nunley RM. Contemporary surgical indications and referral trends in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year review. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (03) 622-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hartman CW, Garvin KL. Femoral fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (24) 2311-2322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yacovelli S, Ottaway J, Banerjee S, Courtney PM. Modern revision femoral stem designs have no difference in rates of subsidence. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (01) 268-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG. Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013; 21 (10) 601-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup D, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME. Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (319) 168-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bougherara H, Zdero R, Shah S. et al. A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements. J Orthop Surg Res 2010; 5 (01) 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12 (08) 839-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wagner H. A revision prosthesis for the hip joint. Orthopade 1989; 18 (05) 438-453
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wagner H. Revision prosthesis for the hip joint in severe bone loss. Orthopade 1987; 16 (04) 295-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Konan S, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Non-modular tapered fluted titanium stems in hip revision surgery: gaining attention. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (11, Supple A): 56-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Study Group. A comparison of modular tapered versus modular cylindrical stems for complex femoral revisions. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 71-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (02) 491-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Langton DJ, Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ. et al. A comparison study of stem taper material loss at similar and mixed metal head-neck taper junctions. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (10) 1304-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Clair AJ, Cizmic Z, Vigdorchik JM. et al. Nonmodular stems are a viable alternative to modular stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (7S): S292-S296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ngu AWT, Rowan FE, Carli AV, Haddad FS. Single 3° tapered fluted femoral stems demonstrate low subsidence at mid-term follow-up in severe bony deficiency. Ann Transl Med 2019; 7 (23) 725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gabor JA, Padilla JA, Feng JE. et al. Short-term outcomes with the REDAPT monolithic, tapered, fluted, grit-blasted, forged titanium revision femoral stem. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (02) 191-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fink B, Urbansky K, Schuster P. Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (07) 889-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cross MB, Paprosky WG. Managing femoral bone loss in revision total hip replacement: fluted tapered modular stems. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (11, Suppl A): 95-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Efe T, Schmitt J. Analyses of prosthesis stem failures in noncemented modular hip revision prostheses. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (04) 665.e7-665.e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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 (07) 1023-1031
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gutiérrez Del Alamo J, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Castellanos V, Gil-Garay E. Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with the Wagner SL revision stem: a 5-year to 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04) 515-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hellman MD, Kearns SM, Bohl DD, Haughom BD, Levine BR. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a monoblock splined tapered grit-blasted titanium stem. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (12) 3698-3703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Herry Y, Viste A, Bothorel H, Desmarchelier R, Fessy MH. Long-term survivorship of a monoblock long cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2019; 43 (10) 2279-2284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sandiford NA, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems osseointegrate reliably at short term in revision THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (01) 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Clair AJ, Gabor JA, Patel KS, Friedlander S, Deshmukh AJ, Schwarzkopf R. Subsidence following revision total hip arthroplasty using modular and monolithic components. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (6S): S299-S303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schwartz AJ, Spangehl MJ, Beauchamp CP. Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty?. Curr Orthop Pract 2014; 25 (02) 143-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cohn MR, Tetreault MW, Li J. et al. Is there a benefit to modularity for femoral revisions when using a splined, tapered titanium stem?. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (6S): S278-S283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Huang Y, Shao H, Zhou Y, Gu J, Tang H, Yang D. Femoral bone remodeling in revision total hip arthroplasty with use of modular compared with monoblock tapered fluted titanium stems: the role of stem length and stiffness. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (06) 531-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sandiford NA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS, Masri BA. Tapered, fluted titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: role and results in contemporary practice. Instr Course Lect 2015; 64: 359-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 REDAPT Revision Femoral System: Design Rationale. Smith & Nephew; 2013: 1–16. Accessed on October 12, 2023, at: https://www.smith-nephew.com/en-us/health-care-professionals/products/orthopaedics/redapt-femoral
    PubMed
  • 33 Paprosky WG. Femoral defect classification: clinical application. Orthopedics Revision 1990
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ilchmann T, Eingartner C, Heger K, Weise K. Femoral subsidence assessment after hip replacement: an experimental study. Ups J Med Sci 2006; 111 (03) 361-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bieger R, Cakir B, Reichel H, Kappe T. Accuracy of hip stem migration measurement on plain radiographs: reliability of bony and prosthetic landmarks. Orthopade 2014; 43 (10) 934-939
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Girard J, Roche O, Wavreille G, Canovas F, Le Béguec P. Stem subsidence after total hip revision: 183 cases at 5.9 years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97 (02) 121-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (420) 148-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tangsataporn S, Safir OA, Vincent AD, Abdelbary H, Gross AE, Kuzyk PRT. Risk factors for subsidence of a modular tapered femoral stem used for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (06) 1030-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bobovec D, Bohaček I, Juras J, Delimar D. Risk factors for subsidence of modular fluted tapered stem implanted by using transfemoral Wagner approach during revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2020; 44 (09) 1685-1691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar