Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 1_Supple_A | Pages 50 - 53
1 Jan 2016
Konan S Garbuz DS Masri BA Duncan CP

Tapered fluted titanium stems are increasingly used for femoral revision arthroplasty. They are available in modular and non-modular forms. Modularity has advantages when the bone loss is severe, the proximal femur is mis shapen or the surgeon is unfamiliar with the implant, but it introduces the risk of fracture of the stem at the junction between it and the proximal body segment. For that reason, and while awaiting intermediate-term results of more recently introduced designs of this junction, non-modularity has attracted attention, at least for straightforward revision cases.

We review the risks and causes of fracture of tapered titanium modular revision stems and present an argument in favour of the more selective use of modular designs.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):50–3.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 55 - 55
19 Aug 2024
Morlock M Wu Y Grimberg A Günther K Michel M Perka C
Full Access

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


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 6 | Pages 443 - 456
28 Jun 2021
Thompson JW Corbett J Bye D Jones A Tissingh EK Nolan J

Aims

The Exeter V40 cemented polished tapered stem system has demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes. This paper presents a systematic review of the existing literature and reports on a large case series comparing implant fractures between the Exeter V40 series; 125 mm and conventional length stem systems.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. In parallel, we performed a retrospective single centre study of Exeter V40 femoral stem prosthetic fractures between April 2003 and June 2020.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 80-B, Issue 3 | Pages 404 - 410
1 May 1998
Matsui M Nakata K Masuhara K Ohzono K Sugano N Ochi T

We implanted 51 Metal-Cancellous Cementless Lübeck (MCCL) prostheses into 45 patients with dysplastic hips and followed 49 hips (96.1%) for five to nine years. One had needed revision for stem fracture and one for infection; the clinical outcome of the other 47 hips was assessed using the Merle d’Aubigné and Postel hip score. All hips were either excellent (63%) or good (37%). Three patients (6%) had mild thigh pain at six months, but this had settled within two years. Serial radiographs showed stable fixation with bone ingrowth in all hips, with increased density of the cancellous bone in contact with the implant and some trabecular ingrowth. There was early varus shift of the stem in one hip, but this stabilised in three months. Osteolysis of the femoral cortex was seen in one hip at seven years after surgery, and mild bone resorption due to stress shielding in 31 (63%). Acetabular bone grafting with autogenous bone from the femoral head gave successful support to the socket in 13 hips. The MCCL prosthesis gave satisfactory mid-term results in patients with osteoarthritis secondary to hip dysplasia