
==== Front
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
0936-8051
1434-3916
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39126455
5483
10.1007/s00402-024-05483-3
Hip Arthroplasty
Clinical outcomes and survival rates of a uncemented modular revision stem system in hip arthroplasty: a 10-year single-institution study on a frail population
De Meo Daniele Daniele.demeo@uniroma1.it

12
Martini Paolo 12
Perciballi Beatrice 12
Guarascio Giovanni 12
Vacca Matteo 1
Cera Gianluca 3
Gumina Stefano 14
Villani Ciro 12
1 https://ror.org/02be6w209 grid.7841.a Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopaedics Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro, 3, Rome, 00161 Italy
2 https://ror.org/011cabk38 grid.417007.5 Department of General Surgery, Plastic Surgery and Orthopaedics, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Rome, Italy
3 https://ror.org/011cabk38 grid.417007.5 Emergency Department, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Rome, Italy
4 Istituto Clinico Ortopedico Traumatologico (ICOT), Latina, Italy
10 8 2024
10 8 2024
2024
144 8 38333840
4 3 2024
23 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Introduction

The increasing prevalence of primary hip arthroplasty has led to a parallel rise in revision cases. Femoral revision often entails compromised bone integrity, requiring consideration of various solutions for optimal reconstructive options. Despite technological advancements, there is limited evidence on the clinical outcomes of the latest modular revision stems. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and survival rates of next generation uncemented modular revision stem in patients undergoing hip revision surgery.

Materials and methods

This retrospective single-center study assessed the survival and failure causes of a specific uncemented modular stem in 48 patients undergoing hip revision surgery between 2012 and 2022. Data included preoperative parameters, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes measured through clinical and radiographic assessments. Forty-eight patients (25 males, 23 females; mean age 72 years) were included, with a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5. Preoperative diagnoses varied, with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) being the most common (45.8%), followed by periprosthetic fractures (27.1%). Partial revisions occurred in 60.4%, total revisions in 39.6%. According to Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, type II and III were the most represented, respectively 35.4% and 50%.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 4.6 years, stem survival was 92.5%. Complications (20%) included dislocation, PJI, fracture, and loosening; the overall reoperation rate was 12.5%. The SF-12 physical score was 43.6, while the mental score was 51.1. The HOOS score was 71.8, and the HHS score was 71.4. Radiographic analysis identified nonprogressive osteolysis in 15.1% of patients.

Conclusions

This study on this uncemented modular revision stem demonstrated favorable outcomes in an elder fragile population with moderate to severe femoral bone loss. The implant’s modularity provides versatility in addressing various defects, without any implant breakage observed during the study period. Literature comparison highlighted similar outcomes despite sample size differences. The promising results warrant continued investigation into the long-term survivorship of this modular stem system.

Keywords

Revision total hip arthroplasty
Uncemented
Stem
Periprosthetic joint infection
Aseptic loosening
Periprosthetic fracture
Revision surgery
Complication
Modular hip stem
Università degli Studi di Roma La SapienzaOpen access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Along with the increase in primary hip arthroplasty, the number of revisions is growing, with a projected 43–70% increase expected by 2030 [1, 2]. Indications for revision vary based on patient demographics. Among patients younger than 55 years at the time of primary surgery, aseptic loosening is the most common indication. In contrast, individuals aged 84 years and older exhibit a higher incidence of dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Wear-related complications or component malposition account for a smaller proportion (5%) [3].

Femoral revision is frequently complicated by bone loss or compromised integrity of the remaining bone stock. In preoperative planning, it is crucial to identify the location of femoral bone defects and classify them, facilitating improved reconstructive options for the patient. This becomes especially pertinent when stem removal becomes challenging or when significant bone loss is identified intraoperatively [4]. Multiple fixation options, such as cemented or uncemented components, and patient-specific implants, must be considered for femoral reconstruction in such challenging conditions [5].

Despite the continuous introduction of new technologies and designs, there remains a paucity of evidence in the literature regarding the clinical outcomes and survival rates of the latest generation revision stems. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the survival rate and potential causes of failure of an uncemented modular revision stem implanted in a consecutive series of frail patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty over a 10-year period in a single institution. The study aims to comprehensively evaluate both clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients treated at a single istitution, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, who underwent hip revision surgery between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2022. Informed consent regarding the surgery, as well as the collection and analysis of data, was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Patients undergoing both partial and complete revision hip surgery were included, specifically those in which the Arcos® modular stem (Zimmer Biomet Inc., Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was utilized, with a minimum follow-up period of one year. Exclusion criteria encompassed incomplete hospitalization data, patients unavailable for follow-up, and systemic cancer with a pre-surgery estimated prognosis of less than 6 months.

All patients were operated on by the same surgical team. Routinely, preoperative evaluation and planning was performed on x-ray and CT scan. The modular cementless stem is usually chosen by the senior surgeon in all the cases in which the bone loss is not completely predictable, regardless of diagnosis (PJI, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, etc…). The Arcos® modular stem is a cementless system featuring three proximal and five distal geometry options, providing various combinations and auxiliary fixation options. This extensive variability in combinations allows for the selection of an appropriate anchor system based on the patient’s bone defects. Standard preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin was administered, and in cases of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), targeted therapy was initiated if a preoperative isolate was identified. Tranexamic acid was used, if not contraindicated, to reduce bleeding. A posterolateral surgical approach was employed for all revisions. Quadriceps and gluteus strengthening, and the assumption of the sitting position was allowed immediately. Weight-bearing was permitted based on general conditions, and in cases where a trochanteric osteotomy had been performed, complete weight loading was deferred according to the size of the osteotomy. Outpatient follow-up visits, including radiographic evaluations, were customized to each patient, typically following a schedule of visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, followed by annual visits for the first five years.

Reviewing all electronic medical records, preoperative clinical parameters included anamnestic features and comorbidities, represented by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) [6]. Preoperative hemoglobin value and preoperative bone stock, according to the Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss, were also documented [7].

Demographic data

48 patients were enrolled in the study, comprising 25 males and 23 females, with an average age of 72 ± 20 years. The CCI value was 5 ± 1.4, and the average BMI was 26.3 ± 5.8 kg/m². Forty-five patients had more than one comorbidity. Comorbidities are listed in Table 1. The pre-operative diagnoses were as follows: periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in 22 patients (45.8%), periprosthetic fracture in 13 patients (27.1%), aseptic loosening in 10 patients (20.8%), painful prosthesis in 2 patients (4.2%), and breakage of the first implant prosthesis in one patient (2.1%). Femoral bone loss according to the Paprosky classification was distributed as follows: Paprosky I in 2 patients (4.2%), Paprosky II in 17 patients (35.4%), Paprosky IIIA in 18 patients (37.5%), Paprosky IIIB in 6 patients (12.5%), and Paprosky IV in 5 patients (10%). The average time to failure from the index procedure was 108 ± 86 months, and the mean hemoglobin (Hb) value was 12 ± 2.04 mg/dl [Table 2].

Table 1 Anamnestic data of the sample

Demographic	
Gender	
 Male	25 (52%)	
 Female	23 (48%)	
 Age (years)	72 ± 12		
BMI (kg/m2)	26.3 ± 5.8	
Smoke	15 (31.3%)	
Drugs	2 (4.2%)	
Anemia	9 (18.8%)	
Diabetes	7 (14.6%)	
Tumors	11 (22.9%)	
Chronic renal failure	4 (8.3%)		
Heart failure	7 (14.6%)		
Previous myocardial infarction	3 (6.3%)		
COPD	7 (14.6%)	
Peripheral vascular disease	3 (6.3%)		
Cerebrovascular disease	2 (4.2%)		
Dementia	5 (10.4%)	
Hemiplegia	2 (4.2%)	
Peptic ulcer	2 (4.2%)		
CCI	5 ± 1.4	
BMI: body mass index; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index

Table 2 Pre-operative diagnosis and paprosky class of the pre-operative radiographs

Pre-operative data		
Diagnosis		
 Periprosthetic joint infection	22 (45.8%)	
 Periprosthetic fracture	13 (27,1%)	
 Aseptic loosening	10 (20.8%)	
 Painful prosthesis	2 (4.2%)	
 Stem breakage	1 (2.1%)	
Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss		
 I	2 (4.2%)	
 II	17 (35.4%)	
 IIIA	18 (37.5%)	
 IIIB	6 (12.5%)	
 IV	5 (10.4%)	
Time to failure	108 ± 86 months	
Hb pre-operative	12 ± 2,04 mg/dl	

A partial revision, involving the prosthetic stem only, was performed in 29 patients (60.4%), while a total revision, which included the replacement of both the stem and the cup, was conducted in 19 patients (39.6%). In cases of total revision, the Zimmer Biomet G7® Acetabular System uncemented cup was used in 18 patients, whereas the Zimmer Biomet Avantage ® Acetabular System cemented cup was used in 1 patient. Extended trochanteric osteotomies (ETO) [8] were performed in 8 patients (16.7%). Internal fixation devices were utilized in 30 patients, including cerclage wires in 17 patients (35.4%), plates and screws in 2 patients (4.2%), and a combination of plates and cerclages in 11 patients (22.9%). No fixation device was used in 18 patients (37.5%). Notably, there were no intraoperative iatrogenic fractures in our sample. Bone grafts were employed in 5 patients (10.4%). Intraoperative data and modular stem characteristics in our sample are detailed in Table 3. The average length of stay was 14 ± 18 days, and blood transfusions were administered to 21 patients.

Table 3 Intraoperative data and modular stem characteristics

Intra-operative data		
Type of revision		
 Partial revision (only stem)	29 (60.4%)	
 Total revision with	19 (39.6%)	
  -G7® Acetabular System	18	
  -Avantage ® Acetabular System	1	
Fixation devices		
 Plates and cerclages	11 (22.9%)	
 Cerclages	17 (35.4%)	
 Plates and screws	2 (4.2%)	
 None	18 (37.5%)	
Proximal body types		
 Cone	34 (70.8%)	
 Limestone	/	
 Broached	14 (29.2%)	
Stem types		
 STS Splined tapered	30 (62.5%)	
 Slotted	/	
 Bullet tip	16 (33.3%)	
 Interlocking	1 (2.1%)	
 ETO	1 (2.1%)	
Couplings (proximal body + distal stem)		
 Cone + STS Splined tapered	20 (41.7%)	
 Cone + Bullet- tip	12 (25%)	
 Broached + STS Splined tapered	10 (20.8%)	
 Broached + Bullet-tip	4 (8.3%)	
 Cone + Interlocking	1 (2.1%)	
 Cone + ETO	1 (2.1%)	
Average length (proximal body + distal stem)	213 ± 27 mm	
Sleeve		
 -6 mm	12 (25%)	
 -3 mm	15 (31.2%)	
 + 3 mm	7 (14.6%)	
 + 6 mm	2 (4.2%)	
 0 mm	12 (25%)	
Material couplings		
 Ceramic-ceramic	28 (58.3%)	
 Dual mobility	20 (41.7%)	
Additional procedures		
 ETO	8 (16.7%)	
 Bone grafts	5 (10.4%)	
STS: splined tapered stem; ETO: extended trochanteric osteotomy

End-points and follow-up

At the follow-up visit, conducted after a minimum of 12 months, patients were interviewed regarding the clinical progression post-surgery and underwent both clinical and radiographic assessments. The primary outcome measured was the survival of the Arcos® stems. Secondary outcomes included the complication rate, specifically periprosthetic joint infection or implant loosening, and postoperative functionality assessed through questionnaires. Clinical postoperative parameters were evaluated using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) [9], the Harris Hip Score (HHS) [10], and Short Form − 12 (SF-12) [11], recorded at the last follow-up.

Postoperative radiographic parameters encompassed signs of loosening, subsidence, or osteolysis within the Gruen zones [12], as observed in the radiograph performed at the last follow-up. Both preoperative and postoperative radiographs were reviewed by two residents in Orthopedics and Traumatology and validated by an expert surgeon. Any discrepancies in the evaluations were resolved by the expert surgeon.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.2.2 software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing©, Vienna, Austria). All acquired values are presented as mean, standard deviation, and/or 95% confidence interval. The Kaplan-Meier analysis will estimate the percentage of implant survival.

Results

Clinical outcomes

At the last follow-up, 40 patients remained available. Eight patients (16.7%) died during the follow-up period due to causes unrelated to the surgery. With an average follow-up duration of 4.6 years, the survivorship of the stem was found to be 92.5% [see Table 4]. Kaplan-Meier curve is depicted in Table 5.

Table 4 Clinical and radiographic outcomes

Results		
Deaths	8 (16.7%)	
Patients without complications	32 (80%)	
Patients with complications	8 (20%)	
 Dislocation	4 (10%)	
 PJI	2 (5%)	
 Aseptic loosening	1 (2.5%)	
 Periprosthetic fracture	1 (2,5%)	
Additional surgical procedures	5 (12.5%)	
 Stem revision	3 (7.5%)	
Clinical results		
 HOOS	71.8 ± 21.6 (18.8–98)	
 HHS	71.4 ± 23.6 (12.5–95)	
 SF-12 (Physical score)	43.6 ± 11.5 (17.6–57.7)	
 SF-12 (Mental score)	51.1 ± 10.9 (14.7–62.9)	
Radiological results		
 Osteolysis (classified by Gruen’s zones)	5 (12.5%)	
 Zone 1	1 (2.5%)	
 Zone 6	2 (5%)	
 Zones 1 + 2	1 (2.5%)	
 Zones 1 + 7	1 (2.5%)	
Length of stay	14 ± 18 days	
Follow-up	55 ± 35 months	
PJI: periprosthetic joint infection; HOOS: hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score; HHS: Harris Hip score; SF-12: short form – 12

Table 5 Kaplan-Meier survival curve

Among the remaining patients, eight individuals (20%) experienced major complications: four cases of dislocation (10%), two cases of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (5%), one case of periprosthetic fracture (2.5%), and one case of aseptic loosening (2.5%). For three patients with dislocation, conservative treatment with a reduction maneuver was successful without recurrence. However, five patients required additional surgical procedures (12.5%): those with chronic PJI underwent a two-stage exchange, the irreducible dislocation case was addressed with prosthetic head and sleeve substitution, the periprosthetic fracture was managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) without stem revision, and the loosening case underwent stem revision. Stem revision was performed in three cases (7.5%).

The average SF-12 physical score was 43.6 ± 11.5, while the average mental score was 51.1 ± 10.9. The mean HOOS score was 71.8 ± 21.6, and the average HHS score was 71.4 ± 23.6.

Radiographical outcomes

Osteolysis was identified in 5 patients (12.5%), and its distribution was classified according to Gruen’s zones: zone 1 in one patient (2.5%), zone 6 in two patients (5%), zones 1 and 2 in one patient (2.5%), and zones 1 and 7 in one patient (2.5%). Importantly, none of the patients with osteolysis reported clinical symptoms or complications.

Discussion

Revision prosthetic surgery carries a fivefold greater risk of complications compared to primary prosthetic surgery, with aseptic loosening (23.19%) and periprosthetic infection (22.13%) ranking as the primary causes of failure [13]. Our retrospective analysis demonstrated a survival rate of 92.5% for the Arcos® stem over an average follow-up of 4 years and 6 months. This contrasts with an all-causes reintervention rate of 12.5% and a death rate of 16.7% due to non-orthopedic causes. A lone study in the literature exploring Arcos® outcomes reported a survival rate of 96% [14]. Dyreborg et al. studied 116 patients with a mean follow-up of 4 years (0.5-6), with only 46 patients available for clinical examination during follow-up. Primary causes of revision in their study were aseptic loosening (69%), periprosthetic fracture (15%), and PJI (12%), while in our sample, the predominant causes were PJI (45.8%) and periprosthetic fracture (27.1%). The variation in survival scores is attributed to the difference in revision causes, with PJI being more prevalent in our study.

Implant breakage, a recognized complication in modular revision hip stems [15, 16], is often associated with inadequate proximal bone support [16–18]. Micromovements due to inadequate support result in wear and, consequently, stem fracture [19]. Factors increasing fracture risk include elevated BMI, small diameter stem, and over-extended trochanteric osteotomy [16]. Remarkably, this complication was not observed in our study. Literature reports only two case reports detailing catastrophic failures with the Zimmer Biomet Arcos® Revision System. The first case described a specific fracture involving a splined tapered stem (STS) at the junction with a proximal conical body, occurring in a young patient with an elevated body mass index and proximal bone deficiency [20]. The second case reported screw failure in the Trochanteric Bolt and Claw Technique in a 74-year-old male patient who underwent revision of a previous hip resurfacing due to an intertrochanteric hip fracture with subtrochanteric extension [21]. The scarcity of literature on this type of complication underscores its unpredictable and multifactorial nature, making generalization inappropriate. The authors recommend meticulous effort in selecting the smallest length of the neck sleeve (or head) and the shorter height of the proximal body of the modular construct when using a modular revision stem, to minimize leverage forces between modular interfaces.

Comparison with published work on complications associated with other stem types reveals similar data despite our smaller sample size (40 vs. 115 ± 82 patients) and equivalent follow-up periods (4.6 vs. 5.2 ± 1.1 years) [Table 6] [22–33].

Table 6 Comparison between different modular revision stem and the results of Arcos stem in the current study

Stem	Number of patients	Mean follow-up
(years)	Rate of revision surgery	Rate of dislocation	Rate of infection	Rate of aseptic loosening	
Zimmer Biomet Arcos	40	4,6	7,5%	10%	5%	2,5%	
MRP Titan25	79	4	4%	5%	3%	3%	
Wright Profemur-R26	49	6,2	6%	2%	2%	4%	
Lima-Lto27	62	4,2	4,8%	5%	2%	0%	
Lima MRS28	316	5	9.8%	1,6%	5,7%	2,2%	
Link MP29	90	6	10%	19%	3%	2%	
Stryker Restoration Modular30	122	4	8%	3%	2%	0%	
Stryker Restoration Modular31	86	4,3	11,6%	2,3%	4,7%	0%	
Stryker Restoration Modular32	161	5,9	14,9%	4,3%	6,2%	2%	
Biomet Mallory/Head32	75	7	11%	5%	7%	3%	
Total	1080	5,2	8,79%	5,24%	4%	1,80%	

Moving on to analyze the clinical results of the submitted questionnaires, the physical component of SF-12 was lower than the values from general population data (50.8 ± 8.9) [34]. The mean value of the mental component of the score was slightly higher than the general population (50.0 ± 9.5). The HOOS values are similar to the ones recorded in aseptic revision reported in the literature [35], but higher than patients who underwent one-stage (68.88 ± 9.47) or two-stage (68.17 ± 8.28) septic revisions [36]. HHS scores at the final follow-up were lower than values in the literature with average postoperative scores ranging from 81 to 85.6 [14, 32, 37]. These clinical outcomes must be interpreted considering the older age of our sample, the high CCI mean value, indicating multiple comorbidities, and the presence of PJI as the main reason for revision. Moreover, during the interviews, we noted that most of the patients found difficulties in ordinary or extraordinary activities due to other orthopedic problems, such as arthrosis of other joints or spine-related problems (hernias and spondylolisthesis).

The preoperative radiographic study was based on Paprosky classification of femoral bone loss. In the literature, approximately 80% of patients undergoing hip prosthetic revision correspond to Paprosky’s type II [32], whereas in our study, this type was found in less than 40% of patients, while the majority of the patients accounted for more severe defects (type III and IV). The preoperative bone stock is a prognostic factor for the success of prosthetic revision [38, 39]. Radiographic data at the time of reevaluation in follow-up showed the presence of osteolysis in 15.1% of patients. However, the patients who showed complications at follow-up had no evidence of subsidence, loosening, or osteolysis at the last radiographic checkup. Pawar et al. [40] described subsidence in patients with Arcos revision (10% of patients with a mean value of 2.3 mm) in comparison to Reclaim (Depuy Synthes) (30% of patients with a mean value of 4.5 mm), with no relation to preoperative bone stock, BMI, stem length, ETO, and none of them underwent further surgical procedures.

The generalization of this study can be considered medium to low. Being a single-center study, the data analyzed were derived exclusively from surgeries performed at our institution; moreover, the population examined is very heterogeneous, both in terms of the causes that led to revision surgeries and the grade of bone defect present at the level of the femoral component. There are several limitations of the study: first of all, the retrospective nature of the study. Secondly, the relatively low number of cases compared to other studies and the heterogeneous reasons for revisions in which this stem was used. Anyway, those limitations must be considered in the light of the relatively recent introduction of this last-generation modular revision stem. In addition, this study included only one type of implant, with no comparison group. Therefore, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions on the success of the Arcos® system compared with other systems.

Conclusions

The modular uncemented revision stem investigated in this study, within a frail population with moderate to severe femoral bone loss, yielded promising results with an acceptable revision rate. Its wide modularity allows versatility in addressing various femoral defects. Further studies must be conducted to assess the long-term survivorship of the implant.

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Schwartz AM Farley KX Guild GN Bradbury TL Jr Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030 J Arthroplasty 2020 35 6S S79 S85 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030 32151524
Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL Jr. (2020) Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 35(6S):S79–S85. 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.03032151524
2. Bozic KJ Kurtz SM Lau E Ong K Chiu V Vail TP Rubash HE Berry DJ The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010 468 1 45 51 10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0 19554385
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ (2010) The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):45–51. 10.1007/s11999-009-0945-019554385
3. Ferguson RJ Palmer AJ Taylor A Porter ML Malchau H Glyn-Jones S Hip replacement Lancet 2018 392 10158 1662 1671 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X 30496081
Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A, Porter ML, Malchau H, Glyn-Jones S (2018) Hip replacement. Lancet 392(10158):1662–1671. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X30496081
4. 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 10.5435/JAAOS-21-10-601 24084434
Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG (2013) Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(10):601–612. 10.5435/JAAOS-21-10-60124084434
5. Brown JM Mistry JB Cherian JJ Elmallah RK Chughtai M Harwin SF Mont MA Femoral component revision of total hip arthroplasty Orthopedics 2016 39 6 e1129 e1139 10.3928/01477447-20160819-06 27575035
Brown JM, Mistry JB, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Harwin SF, Mont MA (2016) Femoral component revision of total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 39(6):e1129–e1139. 10.3928/01477447-20160819-0627575035
6. Charlson ME Pompei P Ales KL MacKenzie CR A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation J Chronic Dis 1987 40 5 373 383 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 3558716
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-83558716
7. Paprosky WG, Bradford MS, Younger TI (1994 Oct-Dec) Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov 79(4):285–291 PMID: 7614867
8. Wyles CC Hannon CP Viste A Perry KI Trousdale RT Berry DJ Abdel MP Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty JBJS Essent Surg Tech 2023 13 3 e2100003 10.2106/JBJS.ST.21.00003
Wyles CC, Hannon CP, Viste A, Perry KI, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ, Abdel MP (2023) Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 13(3):e2100003. 10.2106/JBJS.ST.21.00003
9. Davis AM Canizares M Tennant A Hawker GA Conaghan PG The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical function shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative Osteoarthr Cartil 2008 16 551 559 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.016
Davis AM, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker GA, Conaghan PG et al (2008) The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical function shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 16:551–559. 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.016
10. 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 4 737 755 10.2106/00004623-196951040-00012 5783851
Harris WH (1969) 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 51(4):737–755 PMID: 57838515783851
11. Ware J Jr, 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 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 8628042
Ware J, Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item short-form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233. 10.1097/00005650-199603000-000038628042
12. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. Modes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(141):17–27. PMID: 477100
13. Kenney C Dick S Lea J Liu J Ebraheim NA A systematic review of the causes of failure of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty J Orthop 2019 16 5 393 395 10.1016/j.jor.2019.04.011 31110401
Kenney C, Dick S, Lea J, Liu J, Ebraheim NA (2019) A systematic review of the causes of failure of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Orthop 16(5):393–395. 10.1016/j.jor.2019.04.01131110401
14. Dyreborg K Petersen MM Balle SS Kjersgaard AG Solgaard S Observational study of a new modular femoral revision system World J Orthop 2020 11 3 167 176 10.5312/wjo.v11.i3.167 32280606
Dyreborg K, Petersen MM, Balle SS, Kjersgaard AG, Solgaard S (2020) Observational study of a new modular femoral revision system. World J Orthop 11(3):167–176. 10.5312/wjo.v11.i3.16732280606
15. Nasr PJ Keene GS Revision of a fractured uncemented revision stem using a custom designed punch and retrograde through-knee approach Case Rep Orthop 2015 2015 485729 10.1155/2015/485729 25793134
Nasr PJ, Keene GS (2015) Revision of a fractured uncemented revision stem using a custom designed punch and retrograde through-knee approach. Case Rep Orthop 2015:485729. 10.1155/2015/48572925793134
16. Konan S, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2016) Modular tapered titanium stems in revision arthroplasty of the hip: The Risk and Causes of Stem Fracture. Bone Joint J. ;98-B(1 Suppl A):50 – 3. 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36442
17. Norman P Iyengar S Svensson I Flivik G Fatigue fracture in dual modular revision total hip arthroplasty stems: failure analysis and computed tomography diagnostics in two cases J Arthroplasty 2014 29 4 850 855 10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.008 24120507
Norman P, Iyengar S, Svensson I, Flivik G (2014) Fatigue fracture in dual modular revision total hip arthroplasty stems: failure analysis and computed tomography diagnostics in two cases. J Arthroplasty 29(4):850–855. 10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.00824120507
18. 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 7 889 895 10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.33280 24986941
Fink B, Urbansky K, Schuster P (2014) Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. Bone Joint J 96–B(7):889–895. 10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.3328024986941
19. Mehran N North T Laker M Failure of a modular hip implant at the stem-sleeve interface Orthopedics 2013 36 7 e978 e981 10.3928/01477447-20130624-33 23823060
Mehran N, North T, Laker M (2013) Failure of a modular hip implant at the stem-sleeve interface. Orthopedics 36(7):e978–e981. 10.3928/01477447-20130624-3323823060
20. Duncan ST, Hayes CB, Nunley RM Fracture at the Modular Junction of a Cementless Revision Hip System: a Case Report. JBJS Case Connect. 2016 Apr-Jun ;6(2):e48. 10.2106/JBJS.CC.15.00089
21. Acevedo D, Trapana JE, Constantinescu D, Carvajal Alba JA (2023) Trochanteric Bolt Failure in a modular femoral revision system. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 7(9). e23.00066
22. Brown NM Tetreault M Cipriano CA Della Valle CJ Paprosky W Sporer S Modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015 473 2 555 560 10.1007/s11999-014-3811-7 25053289
Brown NM, Tetreault M, Cipriano CA, Della Valle CJ, Paprosky W, Sporer S (2015) Modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):555–560. 10.1007/s11999-014-3811-725053289
23. Abdel MP Lewallen DG Berry DJ Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014 472 2 599 603 10.1007/s11999-013-2936-4 23529634
Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (2014) Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(2):599–603. 10.1007/s11999-013-2936-423529634
24. 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 2 454 462 10.1007/s11999-012-2552-8 22948527
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. 10.1007/s11999-012-2552-822948527
25. Schuh A Werber S Holzwarth U Zeiler G Cementless modular hip revisionarthroplasty using the MRP Titan Revision Stem: outcome of 79 hips after anaverage of 4 years’ follow-up Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004 124 5 306 309 10.1007/s00402-004-0656-7 15064958
Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G (2004) Cementless modular hip revisionarthroplasty using the MRP Titan Revision Stem: outcome of 79 hips after anaverage of 4 years’ follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(5):306–309. 10.1007/s00402-004-0656-715064958
26. Köster G Walde TA Willert HG Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting J Arthroplasty 2008 23 7 964 970 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.024 18534480
Köster G, Walde TA, Willert HG (2008) Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. J Arthroplasty 23(7):964–970. 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.02418534480
27. Park YS Moon YW Lim SJ Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy J Arthroplasty 2007 22 7 993 999 10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.017 17920471
Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ (2007) Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty 22(7):993–999. 10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.01717920471
28. Lucena T Cavaignac E Courtot L Marot V Chiron P Reina N Implant breakage and revision factors for modular fluted tapered stems in revision total hip arthroplasty Hip Int 2024 34 2 207 214 10.1177/11207000231180065 37306180
Lucena T, Cavaignac E, Courtot L, Marot V, Chiron P, Reina N (2024) Implant breakage and revision factors for modular fluted tapered stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 34(2):207–214. 10.1177/1120700023118006537306180
29. Weiss RJ Beckman MO Enocson A Schmalholz A Stark A Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty J Arthroplasty 2011 26 1 16 23 10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.009 20149579
Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A, Schmalholz A, Stark A (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(1):16–23. 10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.00920149579
30. Restrepo C Mashadi M Parvizi J Austin MS Hozack WJ Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011 469 2 476 482 10.1007/s11999-010-1561-8 20865464
Restrepo C, Mashadi M, Parvizi J, Austin MS, Hozack WJ (2011) Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2):476–482. 10.1007/s11999-010-1561-820865464
31. Stimac JD Boles J Parkes N Gonzalez Della Valle A Boettner F Westrich GH Revision total hip arthroplasty with modular femoral stems J Arthroplasty 2014 29 11 2167 2170 10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.015 25086449
Stimac JD, Boles J, Parkes N, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Boettner F, Westrich GH (2014) Revision total hip arthroplasty with modular femoral stems. J Arthroplasty 29(11):2167–2170. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.01525086449
32. Riesgo AM Hochfelder JP Adler EM Slover JD Specht LM Iorio R Survivorship and complications of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a mid-modular femoral stem J Arthroplasty 2015 30 12 2260 2263 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.037 26220105
Riesgo AM, Hochfelder JP, Adler EM, Slover JD, Specht LM, Iorio R (2015) Survivorship and complications of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a mid-modular femoral stem. J Arthroplasty 30(12):2260–2263. 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.03726220105
33. Pelt CE Madsen W Erickson JA Gililland JM Anderson MB Peters CL Revision total hip arthroplasty with a modular cementless femoral stem J Arthroplasty 2014 29 9 1803 1807 10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.042 24929283
Pelt CE, Madsen W, Erickson JA, Gililland JM, Anderson MB, Peters CL (2014) Revision total hip arthroplasty with a modular cementless femoral stem. J Arthroplasty 29(9):1803–1807. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.04224929283
34. Gandek B Ware JE Aaronson NK Apolone G Bjorner JB Brazier JE Bullinger M Kaasa S Leplege A Prieto L Sullivan M Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment J Clin Epidemiol 1998 51 11 1171 1178 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00109-7 9817135
Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M (1998) Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):1171–1178. 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00109-79817135
35. Wik TS Klaksvik J Husby OS Rasch A Winther SB Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry Acta Orthop 2022 93 132 137 10.2340/17453674.2021.852 34984475
Wik TS, Klaksvik J, Husby OS, Rasch A, Winther SB (2022) Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry. Acta Orthop 93:132–137. 10.2340/17453674.2021.85234984475
36. Tirumala V van den Klemt C Xiong L Kwon YM Comparison of patient reported outcome measures after single versus two-stage revision for chronic infection of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021 141 10 1789 1796 10.1007/s00402-021-03810-6 33783636
Tirumala V, van den Klemt C, Xiong L, Kwon YM (2021) Comparison of patient reported outcome measures after single versus two-stage revision for chronic infection of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective propensity score matched cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141(10):1789–1796. 10.1007/s00402-021-03810-633783636
37. Valtanen RS Hwang KL Amanatullah DF Huddleston JI 3rd Maloney WJ Goodman SB Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular, cementless femoral stem: long-term Follow-Up J Arthroplasty 2023 38 5 903 908 10.1016/j.arth.2022.12.018 36535440
Valtanen RS, Hwang KL, Amanatullah DF, Huddleston JI 3rd, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB (2023) Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular, cementless femoral stem: long-term Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty 38(5):903–908. 10.1016/j.arth.2022.12.01836535440
38. 26Zheng K Li N Zhang W Mid- to long-term outcomes of cementless modular, fluted, tapered stem for massive femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty Orthop Surg 2021 13 989 1000 10.1111/os.12936 33821565
26, Zheng K, Li N, Zhang W et al (2021) Mid- to long-term outcomes of cementless modular, fluted, tapered stem for massive femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg 13:989–100033821565
39. Franzén H Mjöberg B Onnerfält R Early loosening of femoral components after cemented revision. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992 74 5 721 724 10.1302/0301-620X.74B5.1527121 1527121
Franzén H, Mjöberg B, Onnerfält R (1992) Early loosening of femoral components after cemented revision. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(5):721–724. 10.1302/0301-620X.74B5.15271211527121
40. Pawar R Yap R Blow J Garabadi M Rowsell M Minhas H Antapur P Comparison of two tapered fluted modular titanium (TFMT) stems used in revision hip arthroplasty from a single center J Orthop 2022 34 196 200 10.1016/j.jor.2022.08.024 36104996
Pawar R, Yap R, Blow J, Garabadi M, Rowsell M, Minhas H, Antapur P (2022) Comparison of two tapered fluted modular titanium (TFMT) stems used in revision hip arthroplasty from a single center. J Orthop 34:196–200. 10.1016/j.jor.2022.08.02436104996
