Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 1/2017

01-01-2017 | Clinical Research

Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs

Authors: Nemandra A. Sandiford, MBBS, MSc, FRCS(Tr&Orth), Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc, FRCS(C), Bassam A. Masri, MD, FRCS(C), Clive P. Duncan, MB, MSc, FRCS(C)

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The ideal femoral component for revision THA is undecided. Cylindrical nonmodular stems have been associated with stress shielding, whereas junctional fractures have been reported with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. We have used a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium femoral component (Wagner Self-locking [SL] femoral stem) to mitigate this risk. This component has been used extensively in Europe by its designer surgeons, but to our knowledge, it has not been studied in North America. Added to this, the design of the component has changed since early reports.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of rerevision and other complications at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (2) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with high levels of patient function and pain relief at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (3) Does the Wagner SL stem have low rates of subsidence at a minimum 2 years after surgery? (4) Is the Wagner SL stem associated with proximal femoral bone remodeling at a minimum 2 years after surgery?

Method

Between May 2011 and December 2012, we performed 198 femoral revisions, of which 104 (53%) were performed using the Wagner SL femoral stem; during that period, our institution gradually shifted toward increasing use of these stems for all but the most severe revisions, in which modular fluted stems and proximal femoral replacements still are used on an occasional basis. Median followup in this retrospective study was 32 months (range, 24–46 months), and one patient was lost to followup before the 2-year minimum. The femoral deformities in this series were Paprosky Type I (10 hips), Paprosky Type II (26), Paprosky Type IIIA (52), Paprosky Type IIIB (nine), and Paprosky Type IV (two). Functional assessment was performed using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), WOMAC, SF-12, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. All complications and cases of revision were documented. All patients had radiographs performed within 1 year of the latest followup. These were assessed by two surgeons for signs of proximal femoral bone remodeling and subsidence.

Results

Complete preoperative scores were available for 98 patients (98 of 104; 94%). The mean OHS preoperatively and at final followup were 39 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 19), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 48; 95% CI, 43–53). Average WOMAC scores were 44 (SD, 15) and 87 (SD, 20), respectively (p < 0.001; mean difference, 43; 95% CI, 38–48). At final followup, signs of restoration of proximal femoral bone stock was noted in 45 of 103 hips (44%). Six (six of 104; 6%) patients had subsidence of 10 mm to 15 mm. In the remainder (98 of 104; 94%), the mean subsidence was 2 mm (range, 0–9 mm). One revision was performed for loosening associated with infection.

Conclusions

The Wagner SL stem is a viable option for patients with Paprosky Types II and III defects undergoing revision THA. This component provides high levels of patient function with low revision rates and low rates of subsidence during the early postoperative phase. They provide a viable alternative to modular components for treatment of Types II and III defects without the risk of junctional fractures. They can be used for very selected Type IV defects, however this extent of bone loss is most easily addressed with other techniques such as a proximal femoral replacement.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study
Literature
1.
go back to reference Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241CrossRefPubMed Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference 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;30:827–834CrossRefPubMed 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;30:827–834CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Berry DJ. Femoral revision: distal fixation with fluted, tapered grit-blasted stems. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):142–146.CrossRefPubMed Berry DJ. Femoral revision: distal fixation with fluted, tapered grit-blasted stems. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 suppl 1):142–146.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bircher HP, Riede U, Lüem M, Ochsner PE. [The value of the Wagner SL revision prosthesis for bridging large femoral defects][in German]. Orthopade. 2001;30:294–303.CrossRefPubMed Bircher HP, Riede U, Lüem M, Ochsner PE. [The value of the Wagner SL revision prosthesis for bridging large femoral defects][in German]. Orthopade. 2001;30:294–303.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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
7.
go back to reference Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.CrossRefPubMed Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.CrossRefPubMed
8.
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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:61–76.PubMed Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:61–76.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.CrossRefPubMed Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference 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;96:889–895.CrossRefPubMed 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;96:889–895.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Franzén H, Mjöberg B, Önnerfält R. Early loosening of femoral components after cemented revision: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:721–724; erratum in J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:169. Franzén H, Mjöberg B, Önnerfält R. Early loosening of femoral components after cemented revision: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:721–724; erratum in J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:169.
13.
go back to reference 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;97:121–126CrossRefPubMed 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;97:121–126CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(4 suppl 1):106–110.CrossRefPubMed Hamilton WG, Cashen DV, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(4 suppl 1):106–110.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hartwig CH, Böhm P, Czech U, Reize P, Küsswetter W. The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:5–9.CrossRefPubMed Hartwig CH, Böhm P, Czech U, Reize P, Küsswetter W. The Wagner revision stem in alloarthroplasty of the hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:5–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Heyligers IC, Schreurs BW, van Haaren EH. Femoral revision with impaction bone grafting and a cemented polished tapered stem. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2014;26:156–161.CrossRefPubMed Heyligers IC, Schreurs BW, van Haaren EH. Femoral revision with impaction bone grafting and a cemented polished tapered stem. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2014;26:156–161.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Kärrholm J, Malchau H, Snorrason F, Herberts P. Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study of cemented, hydroxyapatite-coated, and porous-coated stems with roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1692–1705CrossRefPubMed Kärrholm J, Malchau H, Snorrason F, Herberts P. Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study of cemented, hydroxyapatite-coated, and porous-coated stems with roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1692–1705CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:517–526.CrossRefPubMed Kavanagh BF, Ilstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:517–526.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H, Milbrink J, Sahlstedt B. The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis: 31 hips followed for 1.5-5 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:541–544.CrossRefPubMed Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H, Milbrink J, Sahlstedt B. The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis: 31 hips followed for 1.5-5 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:541–544.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Muirhead-Allwood S, Sandiford NA, Skinner JA, Hua J, Muirhead W, Kabir C, Walker PS. Uncemented computer-assisted design-computer-assisted manufacture femoral components in revision total hip replacement: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1370–1375.CrossRefPubMed Muirhead-Allwood S, Sandiford NA, Skinner JA, Hua J, Muirhead W, Kabir C, Walker PS. Uncemented computer-assisted design-computer-assisted manufacture femoral components in revision total hip replacement: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1370–1375.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Role and results of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):58–60.CrossRefPubMed Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Role and results of tapered fluted modular titanium stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):58–60.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Munro JT, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Tapered fluted modular titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 peri-prosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(11 suppl A):17–20.CrossRefPubMed Munro JT, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Tapered fluted modular titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 peri-prosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(11 suppl A):17–20.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference 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;93:1320–1326.CrossRefPubMed 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;93:1320–1326.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:491–496.CrossRefPubMed Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:491–496.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Roberson JR. Proximal femoral bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:291–302.PubMed Roberson JR. Proximal femoral bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23:291–302.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Robinson J, Cornell CN, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Reproducible fixation with a tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty at 8-15 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9 suppl):214–218.CrossRefPubMed Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Robinson J, Cornell CN, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Reproducible fixation with a tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty at 8-15 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9 suppl):214–218.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Saklad M. “Grading of patients for surgical procedures”. Anesthesiology. 1941;2: 281–284.CrossRef Saklad M. “Grading of patients for surgical procedures”. Anesthesiology. 1941;2: 281–284.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. Management of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2015;25:380–387.CrossRefPubMed Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. Management of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2015;25:380–387.CrossRefPubMed
32.
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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:454–462.CrossRefPubMed Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:454–462.CrossRefPubMed
34.
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
35.
go back to reference Wagner H, Wagner M. Conus hip prosthesis. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2001;68:213–221PubMed Wagner H, Wagner M. Conus hip prosthesis. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2001;68:213–221PubMed
36.
go back to reference Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMed Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Weber M, Hempfing A, Orler R, Ganz R. Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2-9 years. Int Orthop. 2002;26:36–39.CrossRefPubMed Weber M, Hempfing A, Orler R, Ganz R. Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2-9 years. Int Orthop. 2002;26:36–39.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. 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.CrossRefPubMed Weeden SH, Paprosky WG. 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.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Wirtz DC, Gravius S, Ascherl R, Thorweihe M, Forst R, Noeth U, Maus UM, Wimmer MD, Zeiler G, Deml MC. Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered, fluted titanium stem: 5- to 16-year results of 163 cases. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:562–569.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wirtz DC, Gravius S, Ascherl R, Thorweihe M, Forst R, Noeth U, Maus UM, Wimmer MD, Zeiler G, Deml MC. Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using a modular tapered, fluted titanium stem: 5- to 16-year results of 163 cases. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:562–569.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs
Authors
Nemandra A. Sandiford, MBBS, MSc, FRCS(Tr&Orth)
Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc, FRCS(C)
Bassam A. Masri, MD, FRCS(C)
Clive P. Duncan, MB, MSc, FRCS(C)
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5091-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 1/2017 Go to the issue

Symposium: 2016 Knee Society Proceedings

Editorial Comment: 2016 Knee Society Proceedings