Which Factors Can Lead to Subsidence of a Non-Modular Tapered Stem after Revision Hip Arthroplasty?
Rashid M. Tikhilov , Alisagib A. Dzhavadov , Artur V. Kopcov , Pavel V. Filonov , Saida M. Kurbanova , Igor I. Shubnyakov
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia ›› 2024, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (1) : 42 -51.
Which Factors Can Lead to Subsidence of a Non-Modular Tapered Stem after Revision Hip Arthroplasty?
Aim of the study — to evaluate our own experience of the use of non-modular tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty to determine the incidence and causes of repeated revisions, functional outcomes, and factors associated with subsidence of non-modular tapered stems.
Methods. We retrospectively analyzed the results of using 78 non-modular tapered stems. The average follow-up period was 5.1 years.
Results. There were repeated revisions accompanied by the removal of non-modular tapered stems in 14 (17.9%) cases. Significant subsidence was observed in 5 (6.4%) cases. Bicortical contact less than 2.0 cm (p = 0.017) was a risk factor for subsidence of non-modular tapered stems. The risk of having a bicortical contact of less than 2 cm was higher in patients with type IV femoral defect (p = 0.048). An improvement in functional parameters was found. Patients with significant subsidence of non-modular tapered stems had worse functional outcomes compared to patients without significant subsidence.
Conclusions. The use of non-modular tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty shows good results in terms of repeated revision rates and functional outcomes. Periprosthetic infection and aseptic loosening were the most frequent causes of repeated revisions with removal of non-modular tapered stems. All patients with significant subsidence of non-modular tapered stems underwent repeated revision due to aseptic loosening. Bicortical contact less than 2.0 cm was a risk factor for significant subsidence of non-modular tapered stems. The risk of bicortical contact less than 2.0 cm was higher in patients with type IV femoral defects. Therefore, it is recommended to use non-modular tapered stems with caution or consider other hip reconstruction options in this type of defect.
revision hip arthroplasty / non-modular tapered stem / bicortical contact / femoral defects
| [1] |
Furnes O.G.J., Hallan G., Visnes H., Gundersen T., Fenstad A.M., Dybvik E. et al. Annual Report Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures. Bergen: Health Bergen H.F.; 2021:2021. |
| [2] |
Furnes O., Gjertsen J-E., Fenstad A., Hallan G., Visnes H., Gundersen T. et al. Annual report 2020 Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures Norwegian Arthroplasty Register Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register Norwegian Hip Fracture Register Norwegian Paediatric Hip Register. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18876.46727. |
| [3] |
Kärrholm J., Rogmark C., Naucler E., Nåtman J., Vinblad J., Mohaddes M. et al. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual report 2019. Available from: https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows.net/shpr/r/VGR_Annual-report_SHAR_2019_EN_Digital-pages_FINAL-ryxaMBUWZ_.pdf. |
| [4] |
Kärrholm J., Rogmark C., Naucler E., Nåtman J., Vinblad J., Mohaddes M. et al. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual report 2019. https://doi.org/10.18158/H1BdmrOWu. |
| [5] |
Шубняков И.И., Риахи А., Денисов А.О., Корыткин А.А., Алиев А.Г., Вебер Е.В. и др. Основные тренды в эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава на основании данных регистра артропластики НМИЦ ТО им. Р.Р. Вредена с 2007 по 2020 г. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2021;27(3):119-142. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2021-27-3-119-142. Shubnyakov I.I., Riahi A., Denisov A.O., Korytkin A.A., Aliev A.G., Veber E.V. et al. The Main Trends in Hip Arthroplasty Based on the Data in the Vreden’s Arthroplasty Register from 2007 to 2020. Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2021;27(3):119-142. (In Russian). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2021-27-3-119-142. |
| [6] |
Шубняков И.И., Риахи А., Денисов А.О., Корыткин А.А., Алиев А.Г., Вебер Е.В., и др. Основные тренды в эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава на основании данных регистра артропластики НМИЦ ТО им. Р.Р. Вредена с 2007 по 2020 г. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2021; 27:119-142. https://doi.org/10.21823/2311-2905-2021-27-3-119-142 |
| [7] |
Hamilton W.G., Cashen D.V., Ho H., Hopper R.H. Jr., Engh C.A. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(4 Suppl 1):106-110. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.002. |
| [8] |
Shubnyakov I.I., Riahi A., Denisov A.O., Korytkin A.A., Aliev A.G., Veber E.V., et al. The Main Trends in Hip Arthroplasty Based on the Data in the Vreden’s Arthroplasty Register from 2007 to 2020. [Article in Russian]. Traumatol Orthop Russ. 2021; 27:119–142. https://doi.org/10.21823/2311-2905-2021-27-3-119-142 |
| [9] |
Cameron H.U. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 Suppl 1):138-141. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.32462. |
| [10] |
Hamilton W.G., Cashen D.V., Ho H, Hopper R.H. Jr, Engh C.A. Extensively Porous-Coated Stems for Femoral Revision. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.002. |
| [11] |
Ovesen O., Emmeluth C., Hofbauer C., Overgaard S. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(3):348-354. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.106. |
| [12] |
Cameron H.U. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 17:138-41. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.32462. |
| [13] |
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(7):1023-1031. |
| [14] |
Ovesen O., Emmeluth C., Hofbauer C., Overgaard S. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular tapered stem with distal fixation: good short-term results in 125 revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25:348-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.106. |
| [15] |
Ornstein E., Linder L., Ranstam J., Lewold S., Eisler T., Torper M. Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem – the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(4):441-446. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B4.21319. |
| [16] |
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 Jt Surg Am. 2001; 83:1023-31. |
| [17] |
Wagner H. Revision prosthesis for the hip joint in severe bone loss. Orthopade. 1987;16(4):295-300. (In German). |
| [18] |
Ornstein E, Linder L, Ranstam J, Lewold S, Eisler T, Torper M. Femoral impaction bone grafting with the Exeter stem the Swedish experience: survivorship analysis of 1305 revisions performed between 1989 and 2002. Bone Joint J. 2009; 91:441-446. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B4.21319. |
| [19] |
Baktır A., Karaaslan F., Gencer K., Karaoğlu S. Femoral Revision Using the Wagner SL Revision Stem: A Single-Surgeon Experience Featuring 11-19 Years of Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(5):827-834. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.12.024. |
| [20] |
Wagner H. Revision prosthesis for the hip joint in severe bone loss. [Article in German]. Orthopade. 1987; 16:295-300. |
| [21] |
Regis D., Sandri A., Bonetti I., Braggion M., Bartolozzi P. Femoral revision with the Wagner tapered stem: a ten- to 15-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(10):1320-1326. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B10.25927. |
| [22] |
Baktır A., Karaaslan F., Gencer K., Karaoğlu S. Femoral Revision Using the Wagner SL Revision Stem: A Single-Surgeon Experience Featuring 11-19 Years of Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30:827-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.12.024. |
| [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(4):515-524. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.029. |
| [24] |
Regis D., Sandri A., Bonetti I., Braggion M., Bartolozzi P. Femoral revision with the Wagner tapered stem: a ten- to 15-year follow-up study. Bone Joint J. 2011; 93:1320-1326. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B10.25927. |
| [25] |
Tangsataporn S., Safir O.A., Vincent A.D., Abdelbary H., Gross A.E., Kuzyk P.R. Risk Factors for Subsidence of a Modular Tapered Femoral Stem Used for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(6):1030-1034. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.009. |
| [26] |
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; 22:515-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.029. |
| [27] |
Moriarty P., Sheridan G.A., Wong L., Guerin S., Gul R., Harty J.A. Bicortical Contact Predicts Subsidence of Modular Tapered Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(8):2195-2199. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.03.047. |
| [28] |
Tangsataporn S., Safir O.A., Vincent A.D., Abdelbary H., Gross A.E., Kuzyk P.R. Risk factors for subsidence of a modular tapered femoral stem used for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30:1030-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.009. |
| [29] |
Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Carr A., Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78-B:185-190. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.78B2.0780185. |
| [30] |
Moriarty P., Sheridan G.A., Wong L., Guerin S., Gul R., Harty J.A. Bicortical contact predicts subsidence of modular tapered stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35:2195-2199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.03.047. |
| [31] |
Weeden S.H., Paprosky W.G. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 Suppl 1): 134-137. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.32461. |
| [32] |
Середа А.П., Андрианова М.А. Рекомендации по оформлению дизайна исследования. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2019;25: 165-184. https://doi.org/10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-3-165-184 |
| [33] |
Duncan C.P., Haddad F.S. The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(6):713-716. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.34040. |
| [34] |
Sereda A.P., Andrianova M.A. Study Design Guidelines. [Article in Russian]. Traumatol Orthop Russ. 2019; 25:165–184. https://doi.org/10.21823/2311-2905-2019-25-3-165-184 |
| [35] |
Masri B.A., Meek R.M., Duncan C.P. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(420):80-95. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200403000-00012. |
| [36] |
Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Carr A., Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78-B:185–190. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.78B2.0780185. |
| [37] |
Callaghan J.J., Salvati E.A., Pellicci P.M., Wilson P.D. Jr., Ranawat C.S. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(7):1074-1085. |
| [38] |
Weeden S.H., Paprosky W.G. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17:134-137. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.32461. |
| [39] |
Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T., Ryan P.D. PAST : Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron. 2001;4:1-9. |
| [40] |
Duncan C.P., Haddad F.S. The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96:713-716. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.34040. |
| [41] |
Sandiford N.A., Garbuz D.S., Masri B.A., Duncan C.P. Nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems osseointegrate reliably at short term in revision THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(1):186-192. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5091-x. |
| [42] |
Masri B.A., Meek R.M., Duncan C.P. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 420:80-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200403000-00012. |
| [43] |
Huang Y., Zhou Y., Shao H., Gu J., Tang H., Tang Q. What is the difference between modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(10):3108-3113. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021. |
| [44] |
Callaghan J.J., Salvati E.A., Pellicci P.M., Wilson P.D. Jr, Ranawat C.S. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67:1074-1085. |
| [45] |
Clair A.J., Cizmic Z., Vigdorchik J.M., Poultsides L.A., Schwarzkopf R., Rathod P.A. et al. Nonmodular Stems Are a Viable Alternative to Modular Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7S): S292-S296. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.007. |
| [46] |
Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST : Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis past : paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis Palaeontol Electron. 2001; 4:1–9. |
| [47] |
Sandiford N.A., Garbuz D.S., Masri B.A., Duncan C.P. Nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems osseointegrate reliably at short term in revision THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475:186-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5091-x. |
| [48] |
Huang Y., Zhou Y., Shao H., Gu J., Tang H., Tang Q. What is the difference between modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32:3108-3113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021. |
| [49] |
Clair A.J., Cizmic Z., Vigdorchik J.M., Poultsides L.A., Schwarzkopf R., Rathod P.A., et al. Nonmodular stems are a viable alternative to modular stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34:292-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.007. |
Eco-Vector
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
PDF
(522KB)
