A Role for Modern Primary Cementless Femoral Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND

In revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases with preserved femoral metaphyseal bone, tapered proximally porous-coated "primary" femoral stems may be an option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss undergoing revision THA with either a primary metaphyseal-engaging cementless stem or a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 70 patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss who underwent femoral revision. 35 patients who were revised using a primary cementless femoral stem were compared with 35 patients who underwent femoral revision using a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists. Clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared over an average follow-up of 2.9 years (SD 1.4).

RESULTS

Revision THA was most commonly performed for periprosthetic joint infection (N = 27, 38.6%). The groups were similar with regards to Paprosky femoral classification (P = .56), length of stay (P = .68), discharge disposition (P = .461), operative time (P = .20), and complications (P = .164). There were no significant differences between primary and revision femoral stem subsidence (0.12 vs. 0.75 mm, P = .18), leg length discrepancy (2.3 vs. 4.05 mm, P = .37), and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr (73.1 [SD 21.1] vs. 62.8 [SD 21.7], P = .088). No patient underwent additional revision surgery involving the femoral component.

CONCLUSION

Use of modern primary cementless femoral stems is a viable option for revision hip arthroplasty in the setting of preserved proximal femoral metaphyseal bone. Outcomes are not inferior to those of revision stems and offer potential benefits.