Femoral stem revision surgery with proximal bone loss may be treated with modular uncemented distal fixation stems. Early results of the ZMR tapered stems with relatively fewer cases were encouraging. In this prospective study, we evaluated the 2 to 10 years survivorship, associated complications and functional outcomes of 84 cases of femoral revision using the ZMR tapered stem. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (50), periprosthetic fracture (12), infection (17), stem fracture (4) and instability (1). The mean follow-up was 46 months (range, 25–117). The Kaplan-Meier survival with femoral re-revision for any reason as an end-point was 92.7% (95% CI: 87.7%-97.7%). The mean Harris hip score improved from 37 (10–77) points before operation to 72 (41–96) points at last follow-up. The ZMR tapered stem has shown satisfactory results in 2 to 10 years followup in various femoral stem revision conditions.
SalehK.J., HoltzmanJ., GafniA.. Reliability and intraoperative validity of preoperative assessment of standardized plain radiographs in predicting bone loss at revision hip surgery.J Bone Joint Surg Am2001; 83: 1040–6.
2.
BöhmP., BischelO.The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery.Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 420: 148–59.
KrishnamurthyA.B., MacDonaldS.J., PaproskyW.G.5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery.J Arthroplasty1997; 12: 839–47.
5.
McAuleyJ.P., EnghCAJr.. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components.Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 429: 215–21.
6.
SporerS.M., PaproskyW.G.Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res2004; 429: 227–31.
7.
SporerS.M., PaproskyW.G.Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; 417: 203–9.
8.
DaluryD.F., GonzalesR.A., AdamsM.J.Minimum 5-year results in 96 consecutive hips treated with a tapered titanium stem system.J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 104–7.
9.
KösterG., WaldeT.A., WillertH.G.Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting.J Arthroplasty.2008; 7: 964–70.
10.
KwongL.M., MillerA.J., LubinusP.A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study.J Arthroplasty2003; 18(Suppl 1): 94–7.
11.
PaproskyW.G., GreidanusN.V., AntoniouJ.Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res1999; 369: 230–42.
12.
RodriguezJ.A., FadaR., MurphyS.B., RasquinhaV.J., RanawatC.S.Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem.J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 751–8.
13.
KangM.N., HuddlestonJ.I., HwangK., ImrieS., GoodmanS.B.Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty2008; 23: 220–5.
14.
GrünigR., MorscherE., OchsnerP.E.Three-to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1997; 116: 187–97.
15.
WagnerH., WagnerM.Cone prosthesis for the hip joint.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2000; 120: 88–95.
16.
GarbuzD.S., TomsA., MasriB.A., DuncanC.P.Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems.Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 453: 199–202.
17.
LaksteinD., BacksteinD., SafirO., KosashviliY., GrossA.E.Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years follow-up.Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468: 1310–5.
18.
SafirO., KellettC.F., FlintM., BacksteinD., GrossA.E.Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft.Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 206–12.
19.
Femoral stem fractures in Zimmer modular revision (ZMR) hip systems.TGA News2003; 40: 20.
20.
CallaghanJ.J., SalvatiE.A., PellicciP.M., WilsonP.D.Jr., RanawatC.S.Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am1985; 67: 1074–85.
21.
HungerfordD.S., JonesL.C.The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failures.Clin Orthop Relat Res1988; 235: 12–24.
22.
MorelandJ.R., MorenoM.A.Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip: minimum 5 years followup.Clin Orthop Relat Res2001; 393: 194–201.
23.
MulroyW.F., HarrisW.H.Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study.J Bone Joint Surg Am1996; 78: 325–30.
24.
LeopoldS.S., RosenbergA.G.Current status of impaction allografting for revision of a femoral component.Instr Course Lect2000; 49: 111–8.
25.
MalkaniA.L., SettecerriJ.J., SimF.H., ChaoE.Y., WallrichsS.L.Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders.J Bone Joint Surg Br1995; 77: 351–6.
26.
WeberM., HempfingA., OrlerR., GanzR.Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2–9 years.Int Orthop2002; 26: 36–9.
27.
CameronH.U.Orthopaedic crossfire - Stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in opposition.J Arthroplasty2003; 18(Suppl 1): 101–3.
28.
BarrackR.L.Orthopaedic crossfire - Stem modularity is unnecessary in revision total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative.J Arthroplasty2003; 18(Suppl 1): 98–100.
29.
WirtzD.C., HellerK.D., HolzwarthU.. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR.Int Orthop2000; 24: 134–8.
30.
MroczkowskiM.L., HertzlerJ.S., HumphreyS.M., JohnsonT., BlanchardC.R.Effect of impact assembly on the fretting corrosion of modular hip tapers.J Orthop Res2006; 24: 271–9.
31.
BöhmP., BischelO.Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years.J Bone Joint Surg Am2001; 83: 1023–31.
32.
McInnisD.P., HorneG., DevaneP.A.Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years.J Arthroplasty2006; 21: 372–80.
