No Difference in Subsidence Between Modern Monoblock and Modular Titanium Fluted Tapered Femoral Stems

Subsidence remains a concern when utilizing tapered fluted titanium (TFT) femoral stems and may lead to leg length discrepancy, impingement, instability, and failure to obtain osseointegration. This study aims to compare stem subsidence across 3 modern TFT stems. Our secondary aim was to investigate the influence of bicortical contact or "scratch fit" on subsidence, as well as the role of intraoperative imaging in maximizing bicortical contact and preventing stem subsidence.

A retrospective review of 271 hip arthroplasties utilizing modern TFT stems at a single institution was performed. Three stem designs were included in the analysis: 1 monoblock TFT stem (n = 91) and 2 modular TFT stems (n = 90; n = 90). Patient demographics, Paprosky femoral bone loss classification, bicortical contact, utilization of intraoperative imaging, and stem subsidence (comparison of initial postoperative radiograph to the latest follow-up radiograph-minimum 3 months) were recorded.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall subsidence (P = .191) or the incidence of subsidence >5 millimeters between stems (P = .126). Subgroup analysis based on femoral bone loss grading showed no difference in subsidence between stems. Increased bicortical contact was associated with reduced subsidence (P = .004). Intraoperative imaging was used in 46.5% (126 of 271) of cases; this was not correlated with bicortical contact (P = .673) or subsidence (P = .521).

All 3 modern TFT stems were highly successful and associated with low rates of subsidence, regardless of modular or monoblock design. Surgeons should select the stem that they feel is most clinically appropriate.