Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems: The Role of Stem Length and Stiffness

To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared periprosthetic bone remodeling around monoblock versus modular tapered fluted titanium stems with different stem length and thickness. A retrospective comparative study was performed on 139 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem and 114 consecutive THAs revised with a tapered fluted monoblock titanium stem. The latest follow-up radiographs were compared with immediate postoperative radiographs to assess bone restoration in residual osteolytic areas, femoral stress-shielding, spot-welds, and radiolucent lines. Diameter and medullary canal filling of the 2 stems were measured. More patients in the monoblock group demonstrated osseous restoration than in the modular group (p = 0.009), and the modular stem exerted more severe stress-shielding on the femur (p < 0.001). Stem tip spot-welds developed in 88.5% of modular stems compared with 47.4% of the monoblock stems (p < 0.001). Spot-welds developed in 38.8% of modular stems at the modular junction. Partial or circumferential radiolucent lines were observed at the proximal segment of 30.9% of modular stems, compared with 14.0% of monoblock stems (p = 0.002). Compared with the longer and thinner monoblock stems, modular stems had less proximal osseous restoration in residual osteolytic areas and more severe femoral stress-shielding, stem tip spot-welds, and radiolucent lines around the stems, which were stiffer and had a shorter distal section. The stem diameter and stiffness (which were influenced by stem length, curvature, and modularity) determined bone remodeling patterns. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.