Aim: The aim of this prospective study was to analyse the rate of sinking and the clinical results of the new cementless modular revision stem Revitan curved concerning the length of fixation of the implant and the technique of implantation (endofemoral compared with transfemoral). Material and Methods: 51 cementless modular curved revision stems (Revitan curved) were implanted 17 times endofemoral and 34 times transfemoral. All operations were performed by the first author with 24 times a total exchange of the hip implants and 27 times an exchange of the stem. Patients were followed every 3 months in the first postoperative year and then every 6 months. Because sinking of a cementless implant occurs during the first postoperative year the minimum follow-up was 12 months (average follow-up was 22.5 + −12.6 months). Patients were evaluated clinically using the Harris Hip-Score and length of fixation of the implant as well as implant sinking was evaluated radiographically. Results: The Harris Hip-Score increased from 45.7 preoperatively to 86.7 twelve months postoperative in endofemoral implanted stems and from 41.6 preoperatively to 81.2 twelve months postoperative in transfemoral implanted stems. The patients with transfemoral implanted stems had a significant higher amount of limping and positive Trendelenburg sign after the operation. With time the percentage decreased and reached nearly the same level as in patients with endofemoral implanted stems. 2 endofemoral and 1 transfemoral (with a fixation length of less than 3 cm) implanted stems showed a sinking of 5 mm. 2 transfemoral implanted stems had to be revised because of aseptic loosening. In both stems the fixation length was less than 3 cm in the first revision due to operative technical reasons. Conclusion: The curved cementless revision stem Revitan shows encouraging results using the endofemoral and transfemoral technique. In transfemoral implantation a secure fixation can be reached with a fixation length of more than 3 cm (which is less than the usually recommended fixation length of 4 to 6 cm for cementless revision stems). Transfemoral implanted stems need a longer time of rehabilitation than endofemoral implanted stems

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of modular revision stems, uncemented fluted, tapered to treat periprosthetic femoral (PFF) fracture; we specifically evaluated fracture union, implant stability, patient outcomes, and complications to compare the differences between cemented and cementless primary stem. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 56 cases of unstable periporsthetic femoral fracture (forty B2 and sixteen B3) treated with the uncemented fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with or with or without autogenous bone graft. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Harris Hip Score and WOMAC score. Radiologic evaluations were conducted using Beals and Tower's criteria. Any complication during the follow-up period was recorded. Results. The average follow-up period was 52.1±32.7 months. The average Harris Hip Score was 72.4±19.1. All fractures were united, and a good consolidation was achieved in 47 cases. There was femoral stem subsidence in 3 cases less than 10 mm without an evidence of loosening both radiologically and clinically. The radiologic results using Beals and Towers’ criteria were excellent in 36 hips, good in 10 hips and poor in 10 hips. Radiologic bone union took longer time and statistically significant stem subsidence was observed in cemented primary stem compared to cementless primary stem (Fig1,2). At each follow-up examination the clinical score was significantly higher in patients with cementless primary stem. Conclusion. Our results support the view that cement primary stem has less favorable result in terms of revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fractures

We report the results of a cementless modular revision component which has been used in our hospital since 1993. There were 103 patients, in which the aforementioned cementless femoral revision component was used. Patients were evaluated, using both a modiþed HHS and serial radiographs performed preoperatively, at 2 weeks, 3 months and annually postoperatively. The patients were followed for a minimum of 4 years. Pre-operatively, bony defects were classiþed on radiographs according to the classiþcation of Mallory. Three hips were excluded from the evaluation: 1 was lost to follow-up and 2 were deceased. 100 hips with an average follow-up of 75 months were retrospectively reviewed. Indication for revision was aseptic loosening in 96 cases and infection in 4. Average number of previous hip surgeries in this patient group was 2.3. Average pre-operative hip score was 48,8 compared to an average postoperative hip score of 74,4. Postoperative complications included 2 infections and 2 cases of DVT with occurrence of PE in 1 case, 4 postoperative dislocations, 2 cases with radiographic subsidence of the femoral component and 1 case with sciatic nerve lesion. Intraoperative complications included femoral fractures upon dislocation of the hip or impaction of the new stem in 37 cases. At time of latest review there were no clinical or radiographic signs of component loosening. The incidence of postoperative and intraoperative complications are comparable to the literature. Clinical and radiographic results of the cementless, modular titanium revision component are promising and support its continued use.

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation. All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n. 0. =13,900; n. 5. =2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions). For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group. Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice

Aims. The risk of mechanical failure of modular revision hip stems is frequently mentioned in the literature, but little is currently known about the actual clinical failure rates of this type of prosthesis. The current retrospective long-term analysis examines the distal and modular failure patterns of the Prevision hip stem from 18 years of clinical use. A design improvement of the modular taper was introduced in 2008, and the data could also be used to compare the original and the current design of the modular connection. Methods. We performed an analysis of the Prevision modular hip stem using the manufacturer’s vigilance database and investigated different mechanical failure patterns of the hip stem from January 2004 to December 2022. Results. Two mechanical failure patterns were identified: fractures in the area of the distal fluted profile (distal stem fracture) and failure of the modular taper (modular fracture). A failure rate of 0.07% was observed for distal stem fracture, and modular fracture rates of 1.74% for the original and 0.013% for the current taper design. Conclusion. A low risk of mechanical failure for both fracture types was observed compared to other known complications in revision hip arthroplasty. In addition, the data show that a design change did significantly reduce the risk of a modular fracture. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):151–157

Modern modular revision stems employ tapered conical (TCR) distal stems designed for immediate axial and rotational stability with subsequent osseo-integration of the stem. Modular proximal segments allow the surgeon to achieve bone contact proximally with eventual ingrowth that protects the modular junction. The independent sizing of the proximal body and distal stem allows for each portion to obtain intimate bony contact and gives the surgeon the ability precisely control the femoral head center of rotation, offset, version, leg length, and overall stability. The most important advantage of modular revision stems is versatility - the ability to manage ALL levels of femoral bone loss (present before revision or created during revision). Used routinely, this allows the surgeon to quickly gain familiarity with the techniques and instruments for preparation and implantation and subsequently master the use for all variety of situations. This also allows the operating room staff to become comfortable with the instrumentation and components. Additionally, the ability to use the stem in all bone loss situations eliminates intra-operative shuffle (changes in the surgical plan resulting in more instruments being opened), as bone loss can be significantly under-estimated pre-operatively or may change intra-operatively. Furthermore, distal fixation can be obtained simply and reliably. Paprosky 1 femoral defects can be treated with a primary-type stem for the most part. All other femoral defects can be treated with a TCR stem. Fully porous coated stems also work for many revisions but why have two different revision stem choices available when the TCR stems work for ALL defects?. The most critical advantage is the ability to separate completely the critical task of fixation from other important tasks of restoring offset, leg length, and stability. Once fixation is secured, the surgeon can concentrate on hip stability and on optimization of hip mechanics (leg length and offset). The ability to do this allows the surgeon to maximise patient functionality post-operatively. Modular tapered stems have TWO specific advantages over monolithic stems in this important surgical task. The proximal body size and length can be adjusted AFTER stem insertion if the stem goes deeper than the trial. Further, proximal/distal bone size mismatch can be accommodated. The surgeon can control the diameter of the proximal body to ensure proper bony apposition independent of distal fitting needs. If the surgeon believes that proximal bone ingrowth is important to facilitate proximal bone remodeling, modular TCR stems can more easily accomplish this. The most under-appreciated advantage is the straightforward instrumentation system that makes the operation easier for the staff and the surgeon, while enhancing the operating room efficiency and reducing cost. Also, although the implant itself may result in more cost, most modular systems allow for a decrease in inventory requirements, which make up the cost differential. One theoretical disadvantage of modular revision stems is modular junction fracture, which can happen if the junction itself is not protected by bone. Ensuring proximal bone support can minimise this problem. Once porous ingrowth occurs proximally, the risk of junction fracture is eliminated. Even NON-modular stems fracture when proximal bone support is missing. Another theoretical issue is modular junction corrosion but this not a clinical one, since both components are titanium. One can also fail to connect properly the two parts during surgery

In recent years, the direct anterior approach (DAA) has become a standard approach for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). With the increasing use of the DAA in primary cases also more and more revision surgeries are performed through the same interval. With ability to extend the DAA interval proximally and distally, loose cups, loose stems, and even periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) can be treated. Especially, PPF are devastating complications causing functional limitations and increased mortality. Therefore, we conducted a study to report the outcome of surgical treatment of PPF with the DAA interval. We report on the one year complications and mortality in 40 cases with a mean clinical follow-up of 1.5 years. Mean age of patients was 74.3 years. Fractures were classified as Vancouver B2 (36), and B3 (N=4). In 14 cases, a standard stem was used, and in 26 cases a modular revision stem. In 30 cases, a distal extension +/- tensor release was used, in 4 cases a proximal tensor release was done, and in the remaining 6 cases revision could be performed without extension of the approach. Median cut/suture time was 152 minutes (IQR 80 – 279). The overall complication rate in our patient group was 12.5%. 2 patients died in the first three months after operation. One patient had a transient femoral nerve palsy, which completely recovered. The DAA interval to the hip for the treatment of PFF showed similar results compared with other approaches regarding mortality, complications, fracture healing, dislocation rate and clinical results. We conclude that femoral revision in case of PPF in the DAA interval is a safe and reliable procedure. Each Vancouver type of periprosthetic fracture can be treated by use of this approach

Bone Loss is the main problem in failed total hip arthroplasties. Revision surgery must be conformed to the degree of the bone loss. Since 1986, 330 cases of failed THA underwent to revision surgery. Different solutions were adopted according to Paprosky femoral defects classification. In type I, a primary cementless stem was implanted (23%). In type II and IIIa, were proximal fixation is still possible to achieve, Mid PCA-Howmedica (5%) and modular S-ROM-J& J revision stems (18%) were implanted. In all the other degree of bone loss (IIIb–IV) cementless distal fixation stems, Long PCA-Howmedica (17 %), Wagner-Sulzer (18 %) and modular (MP-Link, Profemur-Wright) (19 %), were used. Patients were clinically and radiographically evaluated by HHS and according to Engh’s criteria. Best results were observed in Type I group (HHS=90). Long and mid PCA stems presented poor clinical (HHS=60) and radiographical results and required re-revision in 15% of cases. Intermediate results were observed in Wagner prostheses. Modular revision stems showed best results although earlier F-U. (HHS=80). Of these, re-revision surgery was performed in two cases, one of which because of infection and the other one due to severe thigh pain. Cementless modular stems seem to be the most suitable technique. Distal fixation associated with proximal fill permit to manage the majority of femoral bone defects minimizing bone grafts. The modular stems, allow to conform the design of the components to the bone defects permitting to achieve primary stability (press-fit), restoring the centre of rotation and muscles tension, reducing pain and restoring hip function

The most important advantage of modular revision stems is versatility - managing ALL levels of femoral bone loss (present before revision or created during revision). The surgeon quickly gains familiarity with the techniques and instruments for preparation and implantation and subsequently masters its use for all variety of situations. This allows the operating room staff to become comfortable with the instrumentation and components. This ability to use the stem in a variety of bone loss situations eliminates intraoperative shuffle (changes in the surgical plan resulting in more instruments being opened), as bone loss can be significantly under-estimated preoperatively or may change intraoperatively. Furthermore, distal fixation can be obtained simply and reliably. The most critical advantage is the ability to separate completely the critical task of fixation from other important tasks of restoring offset, leg length, and stability. Once fixation is secured, the surgeon can concentrate on hip stability and on optimization of hip mechanics (leg length and offset). This allows the surgeon to maximise patient functionality postoperatively. Additionally, the surgeon can control the diameter of the proximal body to ensure proper bony apposition, especially if an extended trochanteric osteotomy was made to obtain femoral exposure. The most under-appreciated advantage is the straightforward instrumentation that makes the operation easier for the staff and the surgeon, while enhancing the operating room efficiency and reducing cost. Also, although the implant itself may result in more cost, most modular systems allow for a decrease in inventory requirements, which make up the cost differential

Introduction. The success of cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), primary as well as for revision, largely depends on the initial stability of the femoral implant. In this respect, several studies have estimated that the micromotion at the bone-implant interface should not exceed 150µm (Jasty 1997, Viceconti 2000) in order to ensure optimal bonding between bone and implant. Therefore, evaluating the initial stability through micromotion measurements serves as a valid method towards reviewing implant design and its potential for uncemented THAs. In general, the methods used to measure the micromotion assume that the implant behaves as a rigid body. While this could be valid for some primary stems (Østbyhaug 2010), studies that support the same assumption related to revision implants were not found. The aim of this study is to assess the initial stability of a femoral revision stem, taking into account possible non-rigid behaviour of the implant. A new in vitro measuring method to determine the micromotion of femoral revision implants is presented. Both implant and bone induced displacements under cyclic load are measured locally. Methods. A Profemur R modular revision stem (MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. Arlington, TN, United States of America) and artificial femora (composite bone 4th generation #3403, Sawbones Europe AB, Malmö, Sweden) prepared by a surgeon were used. The micromotions were measured in proximal-distal, medial-lateral or anterior-posterior directions at four locations situated in two transverse planes, using pin and bushing combinations. At each measuring location an Ø8mm bushing was attached to the bone, and a concentric Ø3mm pin was attached to the implant [Fig.1 and 2]. A supporting structure used to hold either guiding bushings or linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT) is attached to the proximal part of the implant. The whole system was installed on a hydraulic force bench (PC160N, Schenck GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany) and 250 physiological loading cycles were applied [Fig.3]. Results. By combining the local bone and implant displacements, the relative average micromotion appeared to be less than 25µm in the proximal region and less than 50µm in the distal region. These data correspond to a regular implant-bone fit. Also the micromotion is on average larger in the medial-lateral plane than in the posterior-anterior plane. If the implant deformations were not taken into account then the average values for micromotion were overestimated up to 20µm at proximal levels, and up to 140µm at distal levels. Conclusion. Good initial stability is achieved in each case, suggesting a successful long-term outcome. These findings are consistent with a success rate of 96% reported for the used implant over an average of 10 years (Köster 2008). To adequately evaluate the initial stability of femoral implants, the non-rigid behaviour cannot be ignored. Acknowledgments. This research is supported by BVOT (Belgian Association for Orthopaedics and Traumatology) and Impulse Fund KU Leuven

The use of monoblock tapered stems has shown very good results in hip revision surgery, particularly in case of severe proximal femur bone deficiency. However a too valgus neck, a short offset, may result in a high risk of dislocation. In addiction monoblock stems make the control of limb length difficult, and potentially increase the risk of subsidence or intraoperative fracture. Different types of modular tapered stems with distal fixation have been developed to allow a more user-friendly restoration of limb-lenght discrepancy and an indipendent proximal control of offset and anti-retroversion. We assessed 64 hip revisions performed on 63 patients (mean age 62 years). Indication for treatment was: aseptic loosening (42 cases) septic loosening (18 cases) and periprosthetic fracture (4 cases). According to Paprosky classification, femoral defects were staged as type I (2 cases), type II (20 cases), type IIIA (25 cases) and type IIIB (13 cases); periprosthetic fractures were all type B2 according to the Vancouver classification. In all cases we used a Restoration® Modular (Striker, Orthopaedics) cone-conical uncemented stem implanted by a lateral approach, with a trans-femoral osteotomy in 19 cases. A preventive cerclage cable was used in 10 patients in case of very thin cortex. We used the minimum size stem in most of the cases. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range 6–36). Short-term complications included hip dislocation (1 case), recurrent infection (1 case), stem subsidence > 5 mm (1 case). Mean Harris Hip Score improved from 43 to 81.9 (t test p< 0.0005), while limb lenght discrepancy improved in 97% of cases with symmetry in 76%. The use of modular revision stems is an effective alternative in hip revision surgery that ensures good primary stability, while modularity enables the implant to be tailored to the patient, allowing restoration of the limb length and correct muscular balancing