Subsidence Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular and Monolithic Components

Abstract

BackgroundThe ideal femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains undetermined; however, tapered, fluted, titanium (TFT) stems are now widely used with favorable results in all types of revision scenarios. With both modular and monoblock TFT stem options, neither has been proven to be superior. Femoral stem subsidence has been linked to aseptic loosening, instability, and leg length discrepancy. This study aims to assess stem subsidence of modular and monoblock TFT stems at a single urban orthopedic specialty hospital within a tertiary academic medical center. MethodsElectronic medical records of rTHAs performed between January 2013 and March 2018 utilizing modular and monoblock TFT stems were examined. Data collected included baseline demographics, surgical indication, femoral Paprosky classification, and stem subsidence at most recent follow up (3 months to 3 years). Two-sample t-tests and chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 186 patients (106 modular, 80 monoblock) were included in the analysis. Modular stems underwent significantly greater subsidence than monoblock stems at latest radiographic follow-up (3.9 ± 2.6 vs 2.3 ± 2.5 mm, P < .001). A significantly greater proportion of modular stems underwent >5 mm of subsidence at latest follow-up (29.2% vs 11.3%, P < .001). ConclusionMonoblock TFT stems have displayed promising clinical results in prior studies, and now have been shown to decrease the incidence of postoperative subsidence. With the potential for stem subsidence to lead to aseptic loosening, limb length discrepancy, and instability, the orthopedic surgeon should weigh the risks and benefits of utilizing modular vs monoblock TFT stems in rTHA.