Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37872437›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

Femoral revision in total hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular stem: clinical and radiological results with a 8-year follow-up.

David Spranz, David Skrobek, Jannis Randoll, Stefan Kinkel, Christian Merle, Tilman Walker, Tobias Renkawitz, Tobias Reiner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Do modular tapered long stems differ in stability and function? A prospective comparison of two stems in complex femoral revision THA.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

David SpranzDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200 a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
David SkrobekDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200 a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jannis RandollOrthopaedicum Darmstadt, Rheinstraße 19, 64283, Darmstadt, Germany.
Stefan KinkelARCUS Sportklinik Pforzheim, Rastatterstraße 17-19, 75179, Pforzheim, Germany.
Christian MerleDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Paulinenhilfe, Diakonieklinikum Stuttgart, Rosenbergstraße 38, 70192, Stuttgart, Germany.
Tilman WalkerDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200 a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tobias RenkawitzDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200 a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tobias ReinerDepartment of Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200 a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany. Tobias.Reiner@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEARCUS Sports Clinic · DEDiakonie-Klinikum Stuttgart · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionModular femoral components allow for patient-specific restoration of hip joint geometry and the reconstruction of extensive bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, potential problems of modular implants such as taper corrosion and the risk of implant fracture continue to be of concern. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of a cementless modular revision stem following revision surgery due to aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture and to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in these patients at mid-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this study, a consecutive cohort of 75 patients who underwent primary revision THA at our institution using a modular cementless stem design (MRP-TITAN stem) was retrospectively evaluated at a mean follow-up of 7.7 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses were performed with revision of the femoral component for any reason as the end point. The Harris-Hip Score, the UCLA Activity Score, the Forgotten Joint Score and the SF-12 Score were used for clinical assessment. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare pre- and postoperative clinical scores.

resultsOverall stem survival with the endpoint stem re-revision for any reason was 85.4% at a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (range 2.4-14 years). Stem survival was 89.5% in the aseptic loosening group and 78.3% in the periprosthetic fracture group with no statistically significant difference between both groups (p = 0.107). One patient had to be revised due to taper fracture. PROMs improved significantly up to the latest follow-up, and radiographic evaluation showed full osseointegration of all stems in this cohort.

conclusionsRevision THA using a modular cementless titanium revision stem demonstrated adequate clinical and radiological results at mid- to long-term follow-up in this cohort. Cementless revision stems are a useful treatment option to restore the anatomy, especially in deformed hips and in complex revision hip arthroplasty. However, there are some significant disadvantages related to an increased risk of mechanical failure such as corrosion/fretting damage and implant fracture. Future high-quality prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm the supposed advantages.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisPeriprosthetic FracturesFollow-Up StudiesHumansProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAseptic looseningHip revision arthroplastyImplant fractureModularityMRP-TitanPeriprosthetic femoral fracturesTaper damage

Identifiers

PMID37872437
PMCPMC10896780
OpenAlexW4387893717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.