Literature DB >> 28602532

What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Yong Huang1, Yixin Zhou1, Hongyi Shao1, Jianming Gu1, Hao Tang1, Qiheng Tang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 160 consecutive THAs (153 patients) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem from 2002 to 2014 and 129 consecutive THAs (128 patients) revised with a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium stem between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The patient's level of satisfaction, clinical assessment, and complications were examined. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint defined as any reoperation due to septic/aseptic complications.
RESULTS: Mean duration of follow-up was longer in the modular group (6.3 years) than the nonmodular group (5.0 years; P = .003). No significant group differences were found in the postoperative Harris Hip Score, the level of overall satisfaction, the 8-year cumulative survival, the rate of infection, dislocation, or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly more frequently in the modular group (16.9%) than in the nonmodular group (7.0%; P = .011), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the modular group (0.95 mm) than in the nonmodular group (1.93 mm; P = .001). Two mechanical failures associated with the modular design occurred in the modular group.
CONCLUSION: Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems provide satisfactory midterm results in revision THA. Although tapered fluted modular stems are gaining in popularity in revision THA, tapered fluted nonmodular stems should not be disregarded as a viable alternative, especially for relatively straightforward cases.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  femoral revisions; hip arthroplasty complications; revision total hip arthroplasty; survival; tapered modular stems; tapered nonmodular stems

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28602532     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  8 in total

1.  Distal fixation stems for revision of total hip replacement.

Authors:  Fernando Lopreite; Leonel Perez Alamino; Harold Simesen de Bielke; German Garabano; Hernán Del Sel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-21

2.  Static structural analysis of different stem designs used in total hip arthroplasty using finite element method.

Authors:  Chethan K N; Mohammad Zuber; Shyamasunder Bhat N; Satish Shenoy B; Chandrakant R Kini
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2019-06-12

3.  Early outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with a modern modular femoral revision stem in 65 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Christopher E Pelt; Marissa L Stagg; Christin Van Dine; Mike B Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Jeremy M Gililland
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2018-11-17

4.  Satisfactory Outcomes in Patients Operated With Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty for Perthes-like Deformities: Results From a Surgical Technique Utilizing a Conical Stem, an Elevated Hip Center, and No Shortening Femoral Osteotomy.

Authors:  Eiji Takahashi; Ayumi Kaneuji; Isabella Florissi; Charles R Bragdon; Henrik Malchau; Norio Kawahara
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-12-25

5.  A Case of Cementless Impaction Bone Graft in a Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Requiring Calcar Reconstruction.

Authors:  Shigeo Ishiguro; Kunihiro Asanuma; Tatsuya Tamaki; Kazuhiro Oinuma; Akihiro Sudo
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2021-02-27

6.  Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis.

Authors:  Kyung-Soon Park; Sheng-Yu Jin; Jun-Hyuk Lim; Taek-Rim Yoon
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts.

Authors:  Zi-Chuan Ding; Ting-Xian Ling; Ming-Cheng Yuan; Yong-Zhi Qin; Ping Mou; Hao-Yang Wang; Zong-Ke Zhou
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Comparison of modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems in femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Shuo Feng; Yu Zhang; Yu-Hang Bao; Zhi Yang; Guo-Chun Zha; Xiang-Yang Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.