Research Article| Volume 27, ISSUE 8, P1492-1498.e1, September 2012

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Femoral Implant in Paprosky Type III and IV Femoral Bone Loss


      The purpose of this study was to compare results of patients with Paprosky type I and II femoral defects vs type IIIA, IIIB, and IV defects in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty. There were 64 patients in the group with type I and II defects with an average age of 68 years. There were 52 patients with Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, and IV defects with an average age of 67 years. There were 8 intraoperative fractures in the type III and IV group, whereas there were 9 in the type I and II group. There were no differences between the 2 groups with respect to subsidence, loosening, dislocation, infection, and medical complications. Survivorship for the whole group was 96.9% at 5 years. Modular femoral implants provide several intraoperative options to restore leg length, offset, and stability despite femoral defects. We did not realize a higher failure rate in patients with type III or IV defects.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kurtz S.
        • Mowat F.
        • Ong K.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1487
        • Della Valle C.J.
        • Paprosky W.G.
        Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A: 1
        • Gramkow J.
        • Jensen T.H.
        • Varmarken J.E.
        • et al.
        Long-term results after cemented revision of the femoral component in total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 777
        • Engh Jr, C.A.
        • Ellis T.J.
        • Koralewicz L.M.
        • et al.
        Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up.
        J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 955
        • Sporer S.M.
        • Paprosky W.G.
        Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 429: 227
        • Hostner J.
        • Hultmark P.
        • Karrholm J.
        • et al.
        Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: laboratory studies and clinical validation.
        J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16: 76
        • Blackley H.R.
        • Davis A.M.
        • Hutchison C.R.
        • et al.
        Proximal femoral allograft for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteen-year follow-up.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A: 346
        • Malkani A.L.
        • Settecerri J.J.
        • Sim F.H.
        • et al.
        Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77: 351
        • Kang M.N.
        • Huddleston J.I.
        • Hwang K.
        • et al.
        Early outcome of a modular femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23: 220
        • Christie M.J.
        • DeBoer D.K.
        • Tingstad E.M.
        • et al.
        Clinical experience with a modular non- cemented femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty: 4- to 7-year results.
        J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15: 840
        • McCarthy J.C.
        • Lee J.A.
        Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 465: 166
        • Callaghan J.J.
        • Salvati E.A.
        • Pellicci P.M.
        • et al.
        Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement, 1979 to 1982. A two to five years follow up.
        JBJS Am. 1985; 67: 1074
        • Sporer S.M.
        • Paprosky W.G.
        Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 417: 203
        • Hnat W.P.
        • Conway J.S.
        • Malkani A.L.
        • et al.
        The effect of modular tapered fluted stems on proximal stress shielding in the human femur.
        J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 957
        • Pierson J.L.
        • Crowninshield R.D.
        • Earles D.R.
        Fatigue fracture of a modular revision femoral component: a report of forty cases..
        in: Annual Meeting, February; Am Acad Orthop Surg, Washington, DC2005
        • Malkani A.L.
        • Yakkanti M.R.
        Hozack W.J. Parvisi J. Bendon B. Surgical options for femoral reconstruction: the use of modular stems in surgical treatment of hip arthritis: reconstruction, replacement and revision. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia (Pa)2010: 318
        • Mulliken B.D.
        • Rorabeck C.H.
        • Bourne R.B.
        Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4-to-6-year review.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 325: 156
        • Malkani A.L.
        • Lewallen D.G.
        • Cabanela M.E.
        • et al.
        Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis.
        J Arthroplasty. 1996; 11: 411
        • Woolson S.T.
        • Delaney T.J.
        Failure of a proximally porous-coated femoral prosthesis in revision total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10: S22
        • Kwong L.M.
        • Miller A.J.
        • Lubinus P.
        A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study.
        J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18: 94
        • Rodriguez J.
        • Fada R.
        • Murphy S.B.
        • et al.
        Two-year to five-year follow up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the Link MP modular stem.
        J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 751
        • Wirtz D.C.
        • Heller K.D.
        • Holzwarth U.
        • et al.
        A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR.
        Int Orthop. 2000; 24: 134
        • Schuh A.
        • Werber S.
        • Holzwarth U.
        • et al.
        Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP Titan Revision Stem: outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years' follow-up.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004; 124: 306
        • Koster G.
        • Walde T.A.
        • Willert H.G.
        Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting.
        J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23: 964
        • Garbuz D.S.
        • Toms A.
        • Masri B.A.
        • et al.
        Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 453: 199
        • Cameron H.U.
        The long-term success of modular proximal fixation stems in revision total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 138
        • Hummel M.
        • Malkani A.L.
        • Yakkanti M.R.
        • et al.
        Decreased dislocations following revision THA using larger femoral head size and posterior capsular repair.
        J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 73