BACKGROUND: Both modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems have gained popularity over fully porous-coated cylindrical (FPCC) femoral stem designs, but limited data exist comparing subsidence rates following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in subsidence and clinical outcomes among 3 revision femoral stem designs. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 335 patients who underwent femoral component revision to a cementless modular TFT (n = 225), monoblock TFT (n = 63), or FPCC (n = 47) stem between 2012 and 2019. We evaluated radiographic subsidence rates, re-revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes between the 3 stems. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the independent effect of stem type on the risk of subsidence >5 mm. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 39 months (range, 12 to 96 months), there were no differences in mean subsidence rates (3.5 vs 2.4 vs 2.1 mm, P = .14), HOOS Jr scores (78 vs 74 vs 64 points, P = .15), or aseptic re-revision rates (4% vs 3% vs 0%, P = .29) between modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC stems. Although modular TFT stems were more often used in patients with extensive femoral bone loss (Paprosky III and IV), there were no differences in subsidence rates >5 mm among the 3 stems (P > .05) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC femoral stem designs all perform well in revision THA with no difference in clinical outcomes or subsidence rates. Surgeons should select the stem which they feel is the most clinically appropriate.
BACKGROUND: Both modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems have gained popularity over fully porous-coated cylindrical (FPCC) femoral stem designs, but limited data exist comparing subsidence rates following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine differences in subsidence and clinical outcomes among 3 revision femoral stem designs. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 335 patients who underwent femoral component revision to a cementless modular TFT (n = 225), monoblock TFT (n = 63), or FPCC (n = 47) stem between 2012 and 2019. We evaluated radiographic subsidence rates, re-revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes between the 3 stems. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the independent effect of stem type on the risk of subsidence >5 mm. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 39 months (range, 12 to 96 months), there were no differences in mean subsidence rates (3.5 vs 2.4 vs 2.1 mm, P = .14), HOOS Jr scores (78 vs 74 vs 64 points, P = .15), or aseptic re-revision rates (4% vs 3% vs 0%, P = .29) between modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC stems. Although modular TFT stems were more often used in patients with extensive femoral bone loss (Paprosky III and IV), there were no differences in subsidence rates >5 mm among the 3 stems (P > .05) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Modular TFT, monoblock TFT, and FPCC femoral stem designs all perform well in revision THA with no difference in clinical outcomes or subsidence rates. Surgeons should select the stem which they feel is the most clinically appropriate.
Authors: Eoghan Pomeroy; Seán O Flynn; Mihai Grigoras; Terence P Murphy; Alexandra I Stavrakis; Fiachra E Rowan Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2022-09-13