Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 5/2010

01-05-2010 | Original Article

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Porous-coated Modular Stem: 5 to 10 Years Followup

Authors: Dror Lakstein, MD, David Backstein, MD, MEd, FRCSC, Oleg Safir, MD, FRCSC, Yona Kosashvili, MD, MHA, Allan E. Gross, MD, FRCSC

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 5/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

The ZMR® porous stem is a modular cylindrical porous-coated femoral stem for revision THA. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of this stem at midterm followup. We prospectively reviewed 69 patients (72 femoral revisions) treated with the stem. The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in 61 (85%), periprosthetic fractures in five (7%), infection in three (4%), dislocation in two (3%), and fractured stem in one (1%). Minimum followup was 60 months (mean, 85 months; range, 60–114 months). The survival rate with revision for any reason as an end point was 93.8%. Mean preoperative Harris hip score was 39 points, and mean Harris hip score at last followup was 72 points. Four (5.5%) stems required rerevision, two (2.8%) for loosening, one (1.4%) for fracture at the modular junction, and one (1.4%) for infection. Subsidence occurred in eight (11%) patients, in the range of 5 to 25 mm. Two (2.89%) of the stems that subsided were symptomatic and progressive. The ZMR® porous stem is a versatile system that offers a reliable fixation and an off-the-shelf solution for a multitude of femoral reconstruction challenges.
Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Barrack RL. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):98–100.CrossRefPubMed Barrack RL. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):98–100.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference 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;83:1023–1031.CrossRefPubMed 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;83:1023–1031.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:148–159.CrossRefPubMed Böhm P, Bischel O. The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:148–159.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS. 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.PubMed Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS. 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.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Cameron HU. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):138–141.CrossRefPubMed Cameron HU. The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):138–141.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Cameron HU. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):101–103.CrossRefPubMed Cameron HU. Orthopaedic crossfire: stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):101–103.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Dalury DF, Gonzales RA, Adams MJ. Minimum 5-year results in 96 consecutive hips treated with a tapered titanium stem system. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print]. Dalury DF, Gonzales RA, Adams MJ. Minimum 5-year results in 96 consecutive hips treated with a tapered titanium stem system. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print].
8.
go back to reference Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Sr. Distal ingrowth components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:135–141.CrossRefPubMed Engh CA Jr, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Sr. Distal ingrowth components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:135–141.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Garbuz DS, Toms A, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:199–202.CrossRefPubMed Garbuz DS, Toms A, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:199–202.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187–197.CrossRefPubMed Grünig R, Morscher E, Ochsner PE. Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116:187–197.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Hungerford DS, Jones LC. The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:12–24.PubMed Hungerford DS, Jones LC. The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;235:12–24.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Kang MN, Huddleston JI, Hwang K, Imrie S, Goodman SB. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:220–225.CrossRefPubMed Kang MN, Huddleston JI, Hwang K, Imrie S, Goodman SB. Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:220–225.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Köster G, Walde TA, Willert HG. Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:964–970.CrossRefPubMed Köster G, Walde TA, Willert HG. Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:964–970.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–847.CrossRefPubMed Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–847.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):94–97.CrossRefPubMed Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(3 suppl 1):94–97.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG. Current status of impaction allografting for revision of a femoral component. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:111–118.PubMed Leopold SS, Rosenberg AG. Current status of impaction allografting for revision of a femoral component. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:111–118.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FH, Chao EY, Wallrichs SL. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351–356.PubMed Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FH, Chao EY, Wallrichs SL. Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:351–356.PubMed
19.
go back to reference McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:215–221.CrossRefPubMed McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:215–221.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference McCarthy JC, Lee JA. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:166–169.PubMed McCarthy JC, Lee JA. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:166–169.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Moreland JR, Moreno MA. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:194–201.CrossRefPubMed Moreland JR, Moreno MA. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:194–201.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Mroczkowski ML, Hertzler JS, Humphrey SM, Johnson T, Blanchard CR. Effect of impact assembly on the fretting corrosion of modular hip tapers. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:271–279.CrossRefPubMed Mroczkowski ML, Hertzler JS, Humphrey SM, Johnson T, Blanchard CR. Effect of impact assembly on the fretting corrosion of modular hip tapers. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:271–279.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Mulroy WF, Harris WH. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component: a fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:325–330.PubMed Mulroy WF, Harris WH. Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component: a fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:325–330.PubMed
24.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Oct 31. [Epub ahead of print]. Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Oct 31. [Epub ahead of print].
26.
go back to reference Safir O, Kellett CF, Flint M, Backstein D, Gross AE. Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:206–212.CrossRefPubMed Safir O, Kellett CF, Flint M, Backstein D, Gross AE. Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:206–212.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Davis A, Resig S, Gross AE. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1040–1046.PubMed Saleh KJ, Holtzman J, Gafni A, Saleh L, Davis A, Resig S, Gross AE. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1040–1046.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–209.PubMed Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–209.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:227–231.CrossRefPubMed Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:227–231.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Wagner H, Wagner M. Cone prosthesis for the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:88–95.PubMed Wagner H, Wagner M. Cone prosthesis for the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:88–95.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Porous-coated Modular Stem: 5 to 10 Years Followup
Authors
Dror Lakstein, MD
David Backstein, MD, MEd, FRCSC
Oleg Safir, MD, FRCSC
Yona Kosashvili, MD, MHA
Allan E. Gross, MD, FRCSC
Publication date
01-05-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 5/2010
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0937-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2010

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 5/2010 Go to the issue

Symposium: Current Issues in Knee Reconstruction

Current Issues in Knee Reconstruction: Editorial Comment