Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 30, 2025
Individualized Stem-positioning in Calcar-guided Short-stem Total Hip Arthroplasty
Published on: February 27, 2018
Conical Primary Cementless Stem in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: 94 Consecutive Implantations at a Mean Follow-Up of
Sergio Romagnoli1, Matteo Marullo1, Michele Corbella1
1Joint Replacement Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Background:
Revision of a failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses technical challenges. The use of primary stems for revision can be advantageous for maintaining bone stock and reducing complications: small case series have reported promising results in the short-term to mid-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and functional results and survivorship of a consecutive series of THA femoral component revisions using a conical primary cementless stem (PCS).
Methods:
Ninety-four stem revisions with a preoperative Paprosky I or II defect were analyzed at an average follow-up of 12.7 ± 5.4 years. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 92.5% of cases. Twenty patients were lost to follow-up. Two subgroups were created: Group 1 (n = 59) underwent isolated stem revision; Group 2 (n = 15) underwent complete THA revision. All were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively based on the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score, and the visual analog scale for pain (VAS). Residual trochanteric pain and length discrepancies were recorded. Radiographic evaluation included signs of osteolysis, subsidence, loosening, and heterotopic ossification.
Results:
PCS survivorship was 100% at 5 years and 95.9% at 10 years. Overall, significant postoperative improvements (P < .01) were observed on the HHS (44.3 vs 86.9), WOMAC (42.8 vs 82.8), and VAS (7.0 vs 3.0). Postoperative scores on all scales were higher for Group 1 (P < .01). Three patients (4.1%) underwent further stem revision. Demarcation lines (1 mm) were found in 12 (16.2%) patients and significant heterotopic ossifications in 22 (29.7%).
Conclusion:
The use of PCS for stem revision in failed THA with a limited femoral bone defect is a reliable option for both isolated stem revision and concomitant cup revision in well-selected patients.
