Indication for Proximal Femoral Replacement is Associated with Risk of Failure

Published:January 12, 2022DOI:


      • PFR failure was seen at a rate of 22.2% in the cumulative cohort.
      • PFR failure was more common following PFR for failed THA than neoplasm resection.
      • Indication for PFR was the only independent predictor for failure.



      Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is reserved as a salvage procedure following failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) or after wide margin resection of tumors involving the proximal femur. Although failure of the PFR construct remains a significant problem, indication has not previously been investigated as a risk factor for failure.


      This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent PFR over a consecutive fifteen-year period for primary sarcoma or metastatic disease of the proximal femur, compared to conversion to PFR after failed THA. PFR failure was defined as recurrent prosthetic dislocations, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or infection that ultimately resulted in revision surgery.


      Overall, 99 patients were evaluated including 58 in the neoplasm and 41 in the failed THA cohorts. Failed THA patients were older (p<.001), with a greater proportion having comorbid hypertension (p=.008), cardiac disease (p=.014), and history of prior ipsilateral and intracapsular surgeries (p<.001). The failure rate was significantly higher in failed THA patients (39.0% vs 10.3%, p<.001) with significantly shorter implant survivorship on Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=.003). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that THA failure was the only independent predictor for PFR failure (HR: 4.26, 95% CI: 1.66 – 10.94; p=.003).


      This study revealed significantly worse PFR implant survivorship in patients undergoing PFR for the indication of failed THA compared to neoplasm. While the underlying etiology of this relationship remains to be explicitly outlined, poor bone quality and soft tissue integrity, multiple prior surgeries, and comorbid conditions are likely contributing factors.


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

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      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


      1. Tillman RM, Ashford R. Metastatic bone disease: a guide to good practice. British Orthopaedic Oncology Society and British Orthopaedic Association, 2001

        • Stevenson J.
        • Kumar V.
        • Cribb G.
        • Cool P.
        Hemiarthroplasty proximal femoral endoprostheses following tumour reconstruction: is acetabular replacement necessary?.
        The bone & joint journal. 2018; 100: 101
        • Parvizi J.
        • Sim F.H.
        Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses.
        Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2004; 420: 169
        • Klein G.R.
        • Parvizi J.
        • Rapuri V.
        • Wolf C.F.
        • Hozack W.J.
        • Sharkey P.F.
        • Purtill J.J.
        Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures.
        JBJS. 2005; 87: 1777
        • Parvizi J.
        • Tarity T.D.
        • Slenker N.
        • Wade F.
        • Trappler R.
        • Hozack W.J.
        • Sim F.H.
        Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions.
        JBJS. 2007; 89: 1036
        • Chandrasekar C.
        • Grimer R.
        • Carter S.
        • Tillman R.
        • Abudu A.
        • Buckley L.
        Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur.
        The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 2009; 91: 108
        • Simon M.A.
        • Aschliman M.
        • Thomas N.
        • Mankin H.
        Limb-salvage treatment versus amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur.
        The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1986; 68: 1331
        • Kurtz S.
        • Mowat F.
        • Ong K.
        • Chan N.
        • Lau E.
        • Halpern M.
        Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.
        JBJS. 2005; 87: 1487
        • Kabukcuoglu Y.
        • Grimer R.J.
        • Tillman R.M.
        • Carter S.R.
        Endoprosthetic replacement for primary malignant tumors of the proximal femur.
        Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1999; : 8
        • Korim M.T.
        • Esler C.N.
        • Ashford R.U.
        Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions.
        The Journal of arthroplasty. 2014; 29: 2117
        • Van Kampen M.
        • Grimer R.J.
        • Carter S.R.
        • Tillman R.M.
        • Abudu A.
        Replacement of the hip in children with a tumor in the proximal part of the femur.
        JBJS. 2008; 90: 785
        • Malkani A.L.
        • Settecerri J.J.
        • Sim F.H.
        • Chao E.
        • Wallrichs S.L.
        Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders.
        The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1995; 77: 351
        • Harris W.H.
        Revision surgery for failed, nonseptic total hip arthroplasty: the femoral side.
        Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1982; 170: 8
        • Freeman M.
        • Plante-Bordeneuve P.
        Early migration and late aseptic failure of proximal femoral prostheses.
        The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1994; 76: 432
        • Colman M.
        • Choi L.
        • Chen A.
        • Crossett L.
        • Tarkin I.
        • McGough R.
        Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis.
        The Journal of arthroplasty. 2014; 29: 422
        • Al-Taki M.M.
        • Masri B.A.
        • Duncan C.P.
        • Garbuz D.S.
        Quality of life following proximal femoral replacement using a modular system in revision THA.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469: 470
        • Fenelon C.
        • Murphy E.P.
        • Kearns S.R.
        • Curtin W.
        • Murphy C.G.
        Cemented proximal femoral replacement for the management of non-neoplastic conditions: a versatile implant but not without its risks.
        The Journal of arthroplasty. 2020; 35: 520
        • Menendez L.R.
        • Ahlmann E.R.
        • Kermani C.
        • Gotha H.
        Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur.
        Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2006; 450: 46
        • Quinn R.H.
        • Drenga J.
        Perioperative morbidity and mortality after reconstruction for metastatic tumors of the proximal femur and acetabulum.
        The Journal of arthroplasty. 2006; 21: 227
        • Franchi A.
        Epidemiology and classification of bone tumors.
        Clinical Cases in mineral and bone metabolism. 2012; 9: 92
      2. Kindblom LG. Bone tumors: epidemiology, classification, pathology. In: Imaging of bone tumors and tumor-like lesions. Springer. 1. 2009

        • Viste A.
        • Perry K.I.
        • Taunton M.J.
        • Hanssen A.D.
        • Abdel M.P.
        Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss: a review of outcomes.
        Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-b: 325
      3. Schreiber A, Exner G, Von Hochstetter A. Muscle reattachment—especially the gluteal muscles—after proximal femoral resection and replacement by tumor prosthesis. In: Limb Salvage. Springer. 395. 1991

        • Berend K.R.
        • Lombardi A.V.
        • Morris M.J.
        • Bergeson A.G.
        • Adams J.B.
        • Sneller M.A.
        Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality.
        Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2013; 471: 510
      4. Matthews PC, Berendt AR, McNally MA, Byren I. Diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection. Bmj 338, 2009

        • Langlais F.
        Can we improve the results of revision arthroplasty for infected total hip replacement?.
        The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 2003; 85: 637
        • Lange J.
        • Troelsen A.
        • Thomsen R.W.
        • Søballe K.
        Chronic infections in hip arthroplasties: comparing risk of reinfection following one-stage and two-stage revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Clinical epidemiology. 2012; 4
        • Limirio P.H.J.O.
        • Soares P.B.F.
        • Emi E.T.P.
        • Lopes CdCA.
        • Rocha F.S.
        • Batista J.D.
        • Rabelo G.D.
        • Dechichi P.
        Ionizing radiation and bone quality: time-dependent effects.
        Radiation Oncology. 2019; 14: 1
        • Davis A.M.
        • O'Sullivan B.
        • Turcotte R.
        • Bell R.
        • Catton C.
        • Chabot P.
        • Wunder J.
        • Hammond A.
        • Benk V.
        • Kandel R.
        Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma.
        Radiotherapy and oncology. 2005; 75: 48
        • Tibbs M.K.
        Wound healing following radiation therapy: a review.
        Radiotherapy and Oncology. 1997; 42: 99
        • Gosheger G.
        • Gebert C.
        • Ahrens H.
        • Streitbuerger A.
        • Winkelmann W.
        • Hardes J.
        Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma.
        Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2006; 450: 164
        • Shih S.
        • Wang J.
        • Hsu C.
        Proximal femoral megaprosthesis for failed total hip arthroplasty.
        Chang Gung medical journal. 2007; 30: 73
        • Chao E.
        • Sim F.H.
        Composite fixation of salvage prostheses for the hip and knee.
        Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1992; : 91