The use of modular systems adds versatility to the implant system, better restoration of hip biomechanics and lower inventory to the hospital. There have been reports of high metal ions, ARMD reactions and high implant failure rates due to potential problems from taper failures. These are more common in metal-on-metal hip replacements, but are being also reported in other bearings. Between 2001 and 2010, we performed 383 consecutive metal-on-metal (MoM) THRs through a posterior approach, using a BHR cup and Birmingham modular head with one of three different stems, all with 12/14 tapers. The earliest 104 hips employed a cemented MS30 stem (Zimmer GmbH, Winterthur, Switzerland). Subsequent 256 were Synergy and then 23 Anthology (both uncemented and both Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics, Memphis TN USA). There was no significant difference in the average age at surgery (65.4 years cemented vs 65.6 uncemented, p = 0.69), gender ratio (1.68 vs 1.89, p = 0.64), or bearing diameter (46.7 vs 46.8, p = 0.31). The earlier 203 Synergy stems were monoblock heads, while the remaining uncemented stems included a tapered sleeve in addition. There were 3 deep infections and 11 debris-related failures (overall revision rate 4.9%). The revision rate from aseptic failures (ALTR, effusion, osteolysis or component loosening) is 2.87%. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort showed a 10-year implant survival of 96.8% with revision for any reason as the end-point. Cemented stems had a 100% survival at 10 years and 98.6% at 12 years. The uncemented stems had a 93.8% survival at 10 years. Within the uncemented group, the monoblocks had a 5 and 10-year survival of 99.0% and 96.4% respectively while the sleeved had 98.7% (5 years) and 96.3% (7 years) and 82.5% at 8 years. Retreival analysis showed clear evidence of taper failure. Our experience suggests taper failure leading to ALTRs and its sequelae. Others have reported ALTR type reactions in metal on polyethylene and ceramic on polyethylene bearing types as well in bearing diameters ranging from 28mm to 40mm. There is a need to improve taper design especially for use with large heads, and in high demand patients

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky Type 3B and 4 femoral defects, there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

We maintain a database on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 mm or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects, there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

I use monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for many femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been re-revised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10-inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure