Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty?

Adam J. Schwartz, Mark J. Spangehl, Christopher P. Beauchamp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Extensive diaphyseal femoral bone loss with less than 4-5cm of isthmic support is frequently treated with the use of a distally tapered implant. Advocates of modular stems that employ separate body and stem components argue that this design allows for improved version control, implant sizing, and leglength equalization compared with nonmodular designs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 58 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty using a distally tapered femoral stem. Femoral defects were classified as Paprosky type IIIA in 36 patients, IIIB in 17, and IV in five. Implants were modular in 15 and nonmodular in 43. Results: Leg-length discrepancy improved from a mean 1.5 cm preoperatively to 0.79 cm postoperatively. The mean difference in preoperative and postoperative leg-length discrepancy measured 0.61cm and 0.99 cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. Mean subsidence among all implants was 0.3 cm (range, 0.0 to 1.2 cm); subsidence averaged 0.28 cmand 0.38cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. A nonmodular stem at our institution is $558 less expensive than its modular counterpart; this difference translates to a hypothetical overall cost savings of $32,364 in this small series. Conclusions: The advantages of modularity may not outweigh the potential disadvantages, which include the possibility of corrosive wear or fracture at the taper junction and higher implant cost. Additional well-designed, prospective, randomized research should be performed to determine the benefit of this design compared with nonmodular implants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)143-146
Number of pages4
JournalCurrent Orthopaedic Practice
Volume25
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Thigh
Arthroplasty
Hip
Leg
Caustics
Cost Savings
Costs and Cost Analysis
Bone and Bones
Research

Keywords

  • Limb-length inequality
  • Outcomes
  • Revision total hip arthroplasty
  • Subsidence
  • Tapered femoral component
  • Total hip arthroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Schwartz, A. J., Spangehl, M. J., & Beauchamp, C. P. (2014). Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty? Current Orthopaedic Practice, 25(2), 143-146.

Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty? / Schwartz, Adam J.; Spangehl, Mark J.; Beauchamp, Christopher P.

In: Current Orthopaedic Practice, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2014, p. 143-146.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schwartz, AJ, Spangehl, MJ & Beauchamp, CP 2014, 'Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty?', Current Orthopaedic Practice, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 143-146.
Schwartz, Adam J. ; Spangehl, Mark J. ; Beauchamp, Christopher P. / Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty?. In: Current Orthopaedic Practice. 2014 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 143-146.
@article{02fd0193eccb488f9f3ebc7ac6340405,
title = "Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty?",
abstract = "Background: Extensive diaphyseal femoral bone loss with less than 4-5cm of isthmic support is frequently treated with the use of a distally tapered implant. Advocates of modular stems that employ separate body and stem components argue that this design allows for improved version control, implant sizing, and leglength equalization compared with nonmodular designs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 58 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty using a distally tapered femoral stem. Femoral defects were classified as Paprosky type IIIA in 36 patients, IIIB in 17, and IV in five. Implants were modular in 15 and nonmodular in 43. Results: Leg-length discrepancy improved from a mean 1.5 cm preoperatively to 0.79 cm postoperatively. The mean difference in preoperative and postoperative leg-length discrepancy measured 0.61cm and 0.99 cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. Mean subsidence among all implants was 0.3 cm (range, 0.0 to 1.2 cm); subsidence averaged 0.28 cmand 0.38cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. A nonmodular stem at our institution is $558 less expensive than its modular counterpart; this difference translates to a hypothetical overall cost savings of $32,364 in this small series. Conclusions: The advantages of modularity may not outweigh the potential disadvantages, which include the possibility of corrosive wear or fracture at the taper junction and higher implant cost. Additional well-designed, prospective, randomized research should be performed to determine the benefit of this design compared with nonmodular implants.",
keywords = "Limb-length inequality, Outcomes, Revision total hip arthroplasty, Subsidence, Tapered femoral component, Total hip arthroplasty",
author = "Schwartz, {Adam J.} and Spangehl, {Mark J.} and Beauchamp, {Christopher P.}",
year = "2014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "143--146",
journal = "Current Orthopaedic Practice",
issn = "1940-7041",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is modularity necessary when using a tapered stem in revision total hip arthroplasty?

AU - Schwartz, Adam J.

AU - Spangehl, Mark J.

AU - Beauchamp, Christopher P.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Background: Extensive diaphyseal femoral bone loss with less than 4-5cm of isthmic support is frequently treated with the use of a distally tapered implant. Advocates of modular stems that employ separate body and stem components argue that this design allows for improved version control, implant sizing, and leglength equalization compared with nonmodular designs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 58 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty using a distally tapered femoral stem. Femoral defects were classified as Paprosky type IIIA in 36 patients, IIIB in 17, and IV in five. Implants were modular in 15 and nonmodular in 43. Results: Leg-length discrepancy improved from a mean 1.5 cm preoperatively to 0.79 cm postoperatively. The mean difference in preoperative and postoperative leg-length discrepancy measured 0.61cm and 0.99 cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. Mean subsidence among all implants was 0.3 cm (range, 0.0 to 1.2 cm); subsidence averaged 0.28 cmand 0.38cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. A nonmodular stem at our institution is $558 less expensive than its modular counterpart; this difference translates to a hypothetical overall cost savings of $32,364 in this small series. Conclusions: The advantages of modularity may not outweigh the potential disadvantages, which include the possibility of corrosive wear or fracture at the taper junction and higher implant cost. Additional well-designed, prospective, randomized research should be performed to determine the benefit of this design compared with nonmodular implants.

AB - Background: Extensive diaphyseal femoral bone loss with less than 4-5cm of isthmic support is frequently treated with the use of a distally tapered implant. Advocates of modular stems that employ separate body and stem components argue that this design allows for improved version control, implant sizing, and leglength equalization compared with nonmodular designs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 58 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty using a distally tapered femoral stem. Femoral defects were classified as Paprosky type IIIA in 36 patients, IIIB in 17, and IV in five. Implants were modular in 15 and nonmodular in 43. Results: Leg-length discrepancy improved from a mean 1.5 cm preoperatively to 0.79 cm postoperatively. The mean difference in preoperative and postoperative leg-length discrepancy measured 0.61cm and 0.99 cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. Mean subsidence among all implants was 0.3 cm (range, 0.0 to 1.2 cm); subsidence averaged 0.28 cmand 0.38cm for nonmodular and modular implants, respectively. A nonmodular stem at our institution is $558 less expensive than its modular counterpart; this difference translates to a hypothetical overall cost savings of $32,364 in this small series. Conclusions: The advantages of modularity may not outweigh the potential disadvantages, which include the possibility of corrosive wear or fracture at the taper junction and higher implant cost. Additional well-designed, prospective, randomized research should be performed to determine the benefit of this design compared with nonmodular implants.

KW - Limb-length inequality

KW - Outcomes

KW - Revision total hip arthroplasty

KW - Subsidence

KW - Tapered femoral component

KW - Total hip arthroplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900413138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900413138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84900413138

VL - 25

SP - 143

EP - 146

JO - Current Orthopaedic Practice

JF - Current Orthopaedic Practice

SN - 1940-7041

IS - 2

ER -