Stay Short or Go Long in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Paprosky Type II Femoral Defects: A Comparative Study With the Use of an Uncemented Distal Fixating Modular Stem and a Primary Monobloc Conical Stem With 5-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND

In the revisions for Paprosky type II femoral defects, diaphyseal fixating femoral stems are commonly used. To preserve bone stock, the use of a shorter primary conical stem could be an adequate alternative. The objective of this study is to compare the results of a primary conical stem to the more commonly used diaphyseal fixating modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty surgery with Paprosky type II femoral defects.

METHODS

A total of 59 consecutive patients with Paprosky type II femoral defects from our prospective revision registry were included. Thirty patients who received a long distal fixating modular stem (Revision Stem, Lima Corporate) and 29 patients who received a primary conical short stem (Wagner Cone, Zimmer) were prospectively followed. Minimal follow-up time was 2 years for subsidence and patient-reported outcome measures and 5 years for complications, reoperation, and revision. We compared subsidence, perioperative complications, reoperations, femoral component survival, Oxford Hip Score, EuroQol 5 Dimension, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at rest, and VAS for pain during activity between stems.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable regarding demographic, clinical, and surgery-related characteristics. We found more perioperative complications and stem revisions with the modular revision stem than with the primary conical stem. There were no statistical differences in subsidence, EuroQol 5 Dimension, Oxford Hip Score, and VAS for pain at rest or during activity between both stems.

CONCLUSION

In revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type II femoral defects, uncemented primary monobloc conical femoral stems showed the same clinical result as distal fixating modular stems with fewer complications and fewer stem revisions.