What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications. A retrospective...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3108-3113
Hauptverfasser: Huang, Yong, Zhou, Yixin, Shao, Hongyi, Gu, Jianming, Tang, Hao, Tang, Qiheng
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3113
container_issue 10
container_start_page 3108
container_title The Journal of arthroplasty
container_volume 32
creator Huang, Yong
Zhou, Yixin
Shao, Hongyi
Gu, Jianming
Tang, Hao
Tang, Qiheng
description Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications. A retrospective review of 160 consecutive THAs (153 patients) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem from 2002 to 2014 and 129 consecutive THAs (128 patients) revised with a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium stem between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The patient's level of satisfaction, clinical assessment, and complications were examined. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint defined as any reoperation due to septic/aseptic complications. Mean duration of follow-up was longer in the modular group (6.3 years) than the nonmodular group (5.0 years; P = .003). No significant group differences were found in the postoperative Harris Hip Score, the level of overall satisfaction, the 8-year cumulative survival, the rate of infection, dislocation, or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly more frequently in the modular group (16.9%) than in the nonmodular group (7.0%; P = .011), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the modular group (0.95 mm) than in the nonmodular group (1.93 mm; P = .001). Two mechanical failures associated with the modular design occurred in the modular group. Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems provide satisfactory midterm results in revision THA. Although tapered fluted modular stems are gaining in popularity in revision THA, tapered fluted nonmodular stems should not be disregarded as a viable alternative, especially for relatively straightforward cases.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1908798755</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0883540317304461</els_id><sourcerecordid>1908798755</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-73b0b4b998ee53eb83b5e73abc671c441cafb790d3750280506e48c2f7a427e03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFu1DAQhi0EokvhBTggH7kkjOM4diQupaW0UgEJFnG0HGei9SqJg-0s6tvj1S4cOY1G-v5fMx8hrxmUDFjzbl-akHZlBUyWIEqo2BOyYYJXhaqheUo2oBQvRA38gryIcQ_AmBD1c3JRqQaqDG7I4efOJHofadohvXHDgAFni_QDpt-IM_3s-3U0gZq5p1_8PJ3XrVky2NPbcU15bF0ys1sn-j3hFKmb6Tc8uOj8TLc-mZHeuYVe5WODX0YT0-NL8mwwY8RX53lJftx-3F7fFQ9fP91fXz0UlosmFZJ30NVd2ypEwbFTvBMouelsI5mta2bN0MkWei4FVAoENFgrWw3S1JVE4Jfk7al3Cf7XijHpyUWL42hm9GvUrAUlWyWFyGh1Qm3wMQYc9BLcZMKjZqCPvvVeH33ro28NQmffOfTm3L92E_b_In8FZ-D9CcD85cFh0NG6o-HeBbRJ9979r_8PWYKR9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1908798755</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Huang, Yong ; Zhou, Yixin ; Shao, Hongyi ; Gu, Jianming ; Tang, Hao ; Tang, Qiheng</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Yong ; Zhou, Yixin ; Shao, Hongyi ; Gu, Jianming ; Tang, Hao ; Tang, Qiheng</creatorcontrib><description>Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications. A retrospective review of 160 consecutive THAs (153 patients) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem from 2002 to 2014 and 129 consecutive THAs (128 patients) revised with a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium stem between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The patient's level of satisfaction, clinical assessment, and complications were examined. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint defined as any reoperation due to septic/aseptic complications. Mean duration of follow-up was longer in the modular group (6.3 years) than the nonmodular group (5.0 years; P = .003). No significant group differences were found in the postoperative Harris Hip Score, the level of overall satisfaction, the 8-year cumulative survival, the rate of infection, dislocation, or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly more frequently in the modular group (16.9%) than in the nonmodular group (7.0%; P = .011), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the modular group (0.95 mm) than in the nonmodular group (1.93 mm; P = .001). Two mechanical failures associated with the modular design occurred in the modular group. Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems provide satisfactory midterm results in revision THA. Although tapered fluted modular stems are gaining in popularity in revision THA, tapered fluted nonmodular stems should not be disregarded as a viable alternative, especially for relatively straightforward cases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-5403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28602532</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation ; Female ; femoral revisions ; Femur - surgery ; hip arthroplasty complications ; Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects ; Hip Prosthesis - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; Joint Dislocations ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Periprosthetic Fractures ; Postoperative Period ; Prosthesis Design ; Reoperation - instrumentation ; Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; revision total hip arthroplasty ; survival ; tapered modular stems ; tapered nonmodular stems ; Titanium</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3108-3113</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-73b0b4b998ee53eb83b5e73abc671c441cafb790d3750280506e48c2f7a427e03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-73b0b4b998ee53eb83b5e73abc671c441cafb790d3750280506e48c2f7a427e03</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4099-6984</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28602532$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Yixin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shao, Hongyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Jianming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Qiheng</creatorcontrib><title>What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty</title><title>The Journal of arthroplasty</title><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><description>Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications. A retrospective review of 160 consecutive THAs (153 patients) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem from 2002 to 2014 and 129 consecutive THAs (128 patients) revised with a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium stem between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The patient's level of satisfaction, clinical assessment, and complications were examined. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint defined as any reoperation due to septic/aseptic complications. Mean duration of follow-up was longer in the modular group (6.3 years) than the nonmodular group (5.0 years; P = .003). No significant group differences were found in the postoperative Harris Hip Score, the level of overall satisfaction, the 8-year cumulative survival, the rate of infection, dislocation, or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly more frequently in the modular group (16.9%) than in the nonmodular group (7.0%; P = .011), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the modular group (0.95 mm) than in the nonmodular group (1.93 mm; P = .001). Two mechanical failures associated with the modular design occurred in the modular group. Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems provide satisfactory midterm results in revision THA. Although tapered fluted modular stems are gaining in popularity in revision THA, tapered fluted nonmodular stems should not be disregarded as a viable alternative, especially for relatively straightforward cases.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>femoral revisions</subject><subject>Femur - surgery</subject><subject>hip arthroplasty complications</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hip Prosthesis - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Dislocations</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Periprosthetic Fractures</subject><subject>Postoperative Period</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Reoperation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>revision total hip arthroplasty</subject><subject>survival</subject><subject>tapered modular stems</subject><subject>tapered nonmodular stems</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><issn>0883-5403</issn><issn>1532-8406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFu1DAQhi0EokvhBTggH7kkjOM4diQupaW0UgEJFnG0HGei9SqJg-0s6tvj1S4cOY1G-v5fMx8hrxmUDFjzbl-akHZlBUyWIEqo2BOyYYJXhaqheUo2oBQvRA38gryIcQ_AmBD1c3JRqQaqDG7I4efOJHofadohvXHDgAFni_QDpt-IM_3s-3U0gZq5p1_8PJ3XrVky2NPbcU15bF0ys1sn-j3hFKmb6Tc8uOj8TLc-mZHeuYVe5WODX0YT0-NL8mwwY8RX53lJftx-3F7fFQ9fP91fXz0UlosmFZJ30NVd2ypEwbFTvBMouelsI5mta2bN0MkWei4FVAoENFgrWw3S1JVE4Jfk7al3Cf7XijHpyUWL42hm9GvUrAUlWyWFyGh1Qm3wMQYc9BLcZMKjZqCPvvVeH33ro28NQmffOfTm3L92E_b_In8FZ-D9CcD85cFh0NG6o-HeBbRJ9979r_8PWYKR9g</recordid><startdate>201710</startdate><enddate>201710</enddate><creator>Huang, Yong</creator><creator>Zhou, Yixin</creator><creator>Shao, Hongyi</creator><creator>Gu, Jianming</creator><creator>Tang, Hao</creator><creator>Tang, Qiheng</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-6984</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201710</creationdate><title>What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty</title><author>Huang, Yong ; Zhou, Yixin ; Shao, Hongyi ; Gu, Jianming ; Tang, Hao ; Tang, Qiheng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-73b0b4b998ee53eb83b5e73abc671c441cafb790d3750280506e48c2f7a427e03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>femoral revisions</topic><topic>Femur - surgery</topic><topic>hip arthroplasty complications</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hip Prosthesis - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Dislocations</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Periprosthetic Fractures</topic><topic>Postoperative Period</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Reoperation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>revision total hip arthroplasty</topic><topic>survival</topic><topic>tapered modular stems</topic><topic>tapered nonmodular stems</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Yixin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shao, Hongyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gu, Jianming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Qiheng</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Yong</au><au>Zhou, Yixin</au><au>Shao, Hongyi</au><au>Gu, Jianming</au><au>Tang, Hao</au><au>Tang, Qiheng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><date>2017-10</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>3108</spage><epage>3113</epage><pages>3108-3113</pages><issn>0883-5403</issn><eissn>1532-8406</eissn><abstract>Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA), with follow-up showing good results for both stems. We aimed to determine whether there were any differences in clinical outcomes, survivorship, or frequency of complications. A retrospective review of 160 consecutive THAs (153 patients) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem from 2002 to 2014 and 129 consecutive THAs (128 patients) revised with a tapered fluted nonmodular titanium stem between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The patient's level of satisfaction, clinical assessment, and complications were examined. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint defined as any reoperation due to septic/aseptic complications. Mean duration of follow-up was longer in the modular group (6.3 years) than the nonmodular group (5.0 years; P = .003). No significant group differences were found in the postoperative Harris Hip Score, the level of overall satisfaction, the 8-year cumulative survival, the rate of infection, dislocation, or postoperative periprosthetic fractures. However, intraoperative fractures occurred significantly more frequently in the modular group (16.9%) than in the nonmodular group (7.0%; P = .011), and stem subsidence was significantly less in the modular group (0.95 mm) than in the nonmodular group (1.93 mm; P = .001). Two mechanical failures associated with the modular design occurred in the modular group. Both modular and nonmodular tapered fluted titanium stems provide satisfactory midterm results in revision THA. Although tapered fluted modular stems are gaining in popularity in revision THA, tapered fluted nonmodular stems should not be disregarded as a viable alternative, especially for relatively straightforward cases.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28602532</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-6984</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0883-5403
ispartof The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017-10, Vol.32 (10), p.3108-3113
issn 0883-5403
1532-8406
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1908798755
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation
Female
femoral revisions
Femur - surgery
hip arthroplasty complications
Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects
Hip Prosthesis - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Joint Dislocations
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Male
Middle Aged
Periprosthetic Fractures
Postoperative Period
Prosthesis Design
Reoperation - instrumentation
Reoperation - statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
revision total hip arthroplasty
survival
tapered modular stems
tapered nonmodular stems
Titanium
title What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T22%3A56%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Is%20the%20Difference%20Between%20Modular%20and%20Nonmodular%20Tapered%20Fluted%20Titanium%20Stems%20in%20Revision%20Total%20Hip%20Arthroplasty&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arthroplasty&rft.au=Huang,%20Yong&rft.date=2017-10&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3108&rft.epage=3113&rft.pages=3108-3113&rft.issn=0883-5403&rft.eissn=1532-8406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1908798755%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1908798755&rft_id=info:pmid/28602532&rft_els_id=S0883540317304461&rfr_iscdi=true