Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-07-2021 | Hip-TEP | Original Paper

Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem

Authors: Masahiro Hasegawa, Shine Tone, Yohei Naito, Hiroki Wakabayashi, Akihiro Sudo

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 7/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The fully porous long stem could be used for diaphyseal locking and achieve bypass fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study evaluated long-term results for fully porous long stems made of titanium alloy in revision THA.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2010, 45 consecutive femoral revisions were performed using fully porous long stems. Thirty-eight hips had complete clinical and radiographic data for a mean of 13.8 years (range, 10–16.7 years). Femoral bone loss was Paprosky type II in 14 hips, type IIIA in 18 hips, and type IIIB in six hips. Clinical results were analyzed using the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel scoring system. Femoral stress shielding was graded. Radiological loosening of the femoral component was evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with revision for any reason as the end-point.

Results

Mean Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score improved significantly from 10.7 before revision to 14.5 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Third-degree stress shielding was found in seven hips, and fourth degree in 11 hips. Radiological femoral loosening occurred in one hip, which was revised. Another hip was revised for stem fracture. Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rate was 94.7% at both ten and 15 years.

Conclusion

Although stress shielding is a concern with fully porous stems, this stem was useful in revision THA and provided satisfactory long-term results in hips with Paprosky types II, IIIA, and IIIB.

Goff TAJ, Bobak P (2017) Femoral impaction allografting for significant bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 27(3):281–285. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000438CrossRefPubMed

Haynes JA, Stambough JB, Sassoon AA, Johnson SR, Clohisy JC, Nunley RM (2016) Contemporary surgical indications and referral trends in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year review. J Arthroplasty 31(3):622–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.026CrossRefPubMed

Ibrahim DA, Fernando ND (2017) Classifications in brief: the Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(3):917–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5012-zCrossRefPubMed

Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J (2011) A modular cementless stem vs. cemented long-stem prostheses in revision surgery of the hip: a population-based study from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 82(2):136–142. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566145CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chung LH, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen WM, Chen TH, Liu CL (2012) Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: reliable choice for stem revision in Paprosky femoral type III defects. Orthopedics 35(7):e1017–e1021. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20120621-13CrossRefPubMed

Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199912000-00024CrossRef

Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:203–209. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000096803.78689.0cCrossRef

Herry Y, Viste A, Bothorel H, Desmarchelier R, Fessy MH (2019) Long-term survivorship of a monoblock long cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 43(10):2279–2284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4186-2CrossRefPubMed

De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Nocon AA, Sculco TP, Sculco PK, Bostrom MP (2019) Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 43(10):2227–2233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4220-4CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tyson Y, Rolfson O, Kärrholm J, Hailer NP, Mohaddes M (2019) Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 90(5):421–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1624336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Klein AH, Rubash HE (1993) Femoral windows in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res:164-170

12.

Sambandam SN, Duraisamy G, Chandrasekharan J, Mounasamy V (2016) Extended trochanteric osteotomy: current concepts review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26(3):231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1749-zCrossRefPubMed

13.

d’Aubigné RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A(3):451–475CrossRef

14.

Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69(1):45–55. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.69B1.3818732CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ahmet S, İsmet KÖ, Mehmet E, Eren Y, Remzi T, Önder Y (2018) Midterm results of the cylindrical fully porous-coated uncemented femoral stem in revision patients with Paprosky I-IIIA femoral defects. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 26(2):2309499018783906. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499018783906CrossRef

16.

Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA (2007) Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty 22(4 Suppl 1):106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.002CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE (1993) Revision total hip arthroplasty. Long-term results without cement. Orthop Clin North Am 24(4):635–644CrossRef

18.

Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG (1997) 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12(8):839–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(97)90152-2CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2015) What is the survivorship of fully coated femoral components in revision hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):549–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3689-4CrossRefPubMed

20.

Moreland JR, Moreno MA (2001) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:194–201. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200112000-00022CrossRef

21.

Wallace CN, Chang JS, Kayani B, Moriarty PD, Tahmassebi JE, Haddad FS (2020) Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using a modern extensively porous-coated femoral stem. J Arthroplasty 35(12):3697–3702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.052CrossRefPubMed

22.

Weeden SH, Paprosky WG (2002) Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):134–137. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.32461CrossRefPubMed

23.

Thomsen PB, Jensen NJ, Kampmann J, Bæk Hansen T (2013) Revision hip arthroplasty with an extensively porous-coated stem-excellent long-term results also in severe femoral bone stock loss. Hip Int 23(4):352–358. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000032CrossRefPubMed

24.

Huang Y, Shao H, Zhou Y, Gu J, Tang H, Yang D (2019) 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 101(6):531–538. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00442CrossRefPubMed

25.

Vestermark GL, Springer BD (2020) Femoral revision: uncemented extensively porous-coated implants. In: Berry DJ, Lieberman JR (eds) Surgery of the hip, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 1151–1160

26.

Wilson MJ, Hook S, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ, Gie GA (2016) Femoral impaction bone grafting in revision hip arthroplasty: 705 cases from the originating centre. Bone Joint J 98-B(12):1611–1619. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B12.37414CrossRefPubMed

27.

Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS (2013) High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(2):454–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2552-8CrossRefPubMed

28.

Abdel MP, Cottino U, Larson DR, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (2017) Modular fluted tapered stems in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(10):873–881. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00423CrossRefPubMed

29.

Amanatullah DF, Howard JL, Siman H, Trousdale RT, Mabry TM, Berry DJ (2015) Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone loss using a fluted tapered modular femoral component. Bone Joint J 97-B(3):312–317. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.34684CrossRefPubMed

30.

Sandiford NA, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2017) Nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems osseointegrate reliably at short term in revision THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(1):186–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5091-xCrossRefPubMed

31.

Feng S, Zhang Y, Bao YH, Yang Z, Zha GC, Chen XY (2020) Comparison of modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up study. Sci Rep 10(1):13692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70626-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Yacovelli S, Ottaway J, Banerjee S, Courtney PM (2021) Modern revision femoral stem designs have no difference in rates of subsidence. J Arthroplasty 36(1):268–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.078CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Rastogi D (2015) High survivorship with cementless stems and cortical strut allografts for large femoral bone defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(9):2990–3000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4358-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Ding Z, Ling T, Mou P, Wang D, Zhou K, Zhou Z (2020) Bone restoration after revision hip arthroplasty with femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems with cortical strut allografts. J Orthop Surg Res 15(1):194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01720-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Ding ZC, Ling TX, Yuan MC, Qin YZ, Mou P, Wang HY, Zhou ZK (2020) Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21(1):218. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03250-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Busch CA, Charles MN, Haydon CM, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Macdonald SJ, McCalden RW (2005) Fractures of distally-fixed femoral stems after revision arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(10):1333–1336. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B10.16528CrossRefPubMed

37.

Landa J, Benke M, Dayan A, Pereira G, Di Cesare PE (2009) Fracture of fully coated echelon femoral stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24(2):322.e13–322.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.12.010CrossRef

38.

Chang CH, Lin PC, Shih CM, Chen CC, Hsieh PH, Shih HN (2018) Fracture of cobalt chrome, fully-coat beaded femoral revision long stem, a clinical outcomes study. Biomed J 41(1):46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2018.02.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem
Authors: Masahiro Hasegawa
Shine Tone
Yohei Naito
Hiroki Wakabayashi
Akihiro Sudo
Publication date: 01-07-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Hip-TEP
Hip-TEP
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 7/2021
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05030-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2021

Comment on “Combined use of tranexamic acid and rivaroxaban in posterior lumbar interbody fusion safely reduces blood loss and transfusion rates without increasing the risk of thrombosis-a prospective, stratified, randomized, controlled trial”

Low complication rate and better results for intramedullary nail - arthrodesis for infected knee joints compared to external fixator—a series of one hundred fifty two patients

Surgical repair techniques, functional outcome, and return to sports after apophyseal avulsion fractures of the ischial tuberosity in adolescents

Clinical outcomes and survivorship of two-stage total hip or knee arthroplasty in septic arthritis: a retrospective analysis with a minimum five-year follow-up

Surgical strategy for non-continuous thoracic spinal stenosis: one- or two-stage surgery?

A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on fracture nonunion in the last three decades