Background: TFMT stems are modular porous coated stems widely used in revision hip arthroplasty. Although TFMT stems are popular due to its proven advantage in the setting of severe bone deficiency, subsidence is a concern in these stem designs. We used two TFMT stems between 2013 and 2019, ARCOS(Zimmer Biomet) and Reclaim(Depuy Synthes). We reviewed our results and compared these stems. Aim: The primary aim was a) look for early to mid-term stem survival b) radiological outcome measuring subsidence, secondary aim was to measure proximal femoral bone stock changes. Materials and methods: Data was collected retrospectively. There were 51 patients in Arcos and 57 patients in Reclaim cohort. Both cohorts were comparable with respect to gender, side, BMI, paprosky defect, indications for surgery, ETO and stem length. The mean age group was 78.03 in Arcos and 73.75 in Reclaim. Results: At a mean follow up of 5 years both cohorts showed excellent stem survival, 96.4% in Reclaim cohort as compared to 100% in Arcos. Subsidence was observed in both but none required a revision due to subsidence. There was a significant difference (p = 0.017) between the cohorts with mean of 2.3 mm(0-12 mm) in Arcos as compared to 4.5 mm(0-25 mm) in Reclaim. Both cohorts showed excellent restoration of proximal femoral bone stock. Conclusion: Our data shows promising results using TFMT stems at 5 year follow up with more than 95% stem survival, minimal subsidence and good restoration of proximal femoral bone stock. The difference in subsidence between these stems may be attributed to stem geometry and difference in taper.
Background: TFMT stems are modular porous coated stems widely used in revision hip arthroplasty. Although TFMT stems are popular due to its proven advantage in the setting of severe bone deficiency, subsidence is a concern in these stem designs. We used two TFMT stems between 2013 and 2019, ARCOS(Zimmer Biomet) and Reclaim(Depuy Synthes). We reviewed our results and compared these stems. Aim: The primary aim was a) look for early to mid-term stem survival b) radiological outcome measuring subsidence, secondary aim was to measure proximal femoral bone stock changes. Materials and methods: Data was collected retrospectively. There were 51 patients in Arcos and 57 patients in Reclaim cohort. Both cohorts were comparable with respect to gender, side, BMI, paprosky defect, indications for surgery, ETO and stem length. The mean age group was 78.03 in Arcos and 73.75 in Reclaim. Results: At a mean follow up of 5 years both cohorts showed excellent stem survival, 96.4% in Reclaim cohort as compared to 100% in Arcos. Subsidence was observed in both but none required a revision due to subsidence. There was a significant difference (p = 0.017) between the cohorts with mean of 2.3 mm(0-12 mm) in Arcos as compared to 4.5 mm(0-25 mm) in Reclaim. Both cohorts showed excellent restoration of proximal femoral bone stock. Conclusion: Our data shows promising results using TFMT stems at 5 year follow up with more than 95% stem survival, minimal subsidence and good restoration of proximal femoral bone stock. The difference in subsidence between these stems may be attributed to stem geometry and difference in taper.
Authors: Joshua A Parry; Nicolas M Hernandez; Daniel J Berry; Matthew P Abdel; Brandon J Yuan Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jose A Rodriguez; Ajit J Deshmukh; Wolfgang U Klauser; Vijay J Rasquinha; Philipp Lubinus; Chitranjan S Ranawat Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jeffery L Pierson; Scott R Small; Jose A Rodriguez; Michael N Kang; Andrew H Glassman Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Friedrich Bottner; Mark Zawadsky; Edwin P Su; Mathias Bostrom; Lars Palm; Leif Ryd; Thomas P Sculco Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.176