Tapered, Fluted, Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedics Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-04 DOI:10.3928/01477447-20250217-01
Bradford P Zitsch, Jay J Byrd, Brandt Buckner, Beau S Konigsberg, Curtis W Hartman
{"title":"Tapered, Fluted, Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.","authors":"Bradford P Zitsch, Jay J Byrd, Brandt Buckner, Beau S Konigsberg, Curtis W Hartman","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20250217-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Establishing stable femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains challenging. Early monobloc tapered, fluted, titanium (TFT) designs were complicated by high rates of subsidence, while modular designs were complicated by taper corrosion and junctional fractures. Newer generation monobloc stems have been designed to minimize subsidence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present the clinical and radio-graphic results of the most recent modular and monobloc TFT designs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients undergoing rTHA in which TFT femoral stems were used, whether modular or monobloc, were included in this retrospective review. Included stems had the same design characteristics and were from the same manufacturer. The only difference was neck modularity. Radiographic analysis for stem subsidence was performed. Clinical outcomes including Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, and re-revisions were collected. We examined survivorship for the endpoints of subsidence or re-revision for any reason.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-four (66 monobloc, 28 modular) hips met inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up of 25.9 months. Mean stem subsidence was 1.9±0.2 mm in the modular group and 2.1±0.3 mm in the monobloc group (<i>P</i>=.56), with 90 of 94 (95%) stems subsiding less than 5 mm. Twelve hips (13%) required re-revision with no difference in survival between the groups. HHS and WOMAC scores significantly improved from preoperative to last recorded follow-up in both groups (<i>P</i>≤.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Advances in implant design including spline geometry and more aggressive tapers in monobloc TFT femoral components offer encouraging clinical outcomes with an overall low risk of clinically significant subsidence. [<i>Orthopedics</i>. 2025;48(2):79-86.].</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":"79-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20250217-01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Establishing stable femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains challenging. Early monobloc tapered, fluted, titanium (TFT) designs were complicated by high rates of subsidence, while modular designs were complicated by taper corrosion and junctional fractures. Newer generation monobloc stems have been designed to minimize subsidence. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present the clinical and radio-graphic results of the most recent modular and monobloc TFT designs.

Materials and methods: Patients undergoing rTHA in which TFT femoral stems were used, whether modular or monobloc, were included in this retrospective review. Included stems had the same design characteristics and were from the same manufacturer. The only difference was neck modularity. Radiographic analysis for stem subsidence was performed. Clinical outcomes including Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, and re-revisions were collected. We examined survivorship for the endpoints of subsidence or re-revision for any reason.

Results: Ninety-four (66 monobloc, 28 modular) hips met inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up of 25.9 months. Mean stem subsidence was 1.9±0.2 mm in the modular group and 2.1±0.3 mm in the monobloc group (P=.56), with 90 of 94 (95%) stems subsiding less than 5 mm. Twelve hips (13%) required re-revision with no difference in survival between the groups. HHS and WOMAC scores significantly improved from preoperative to last recorded follow-up in both groups (P≤.01).

Conclusion: Advances in implant design including spline geometry and more aggressive tapers in monobloc TFT femoral components offer encouraging clinical outcomes with an overall low risk of clinically significant subsidence. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(2):79-86.].

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedics
Orthopedics 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice. The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信