Skip to main content
Download PDF

15-year survivorship of a unique dual-modular femoral stem in primary hip arthroplasty

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 312 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Hip offset, version, and length are interdependent femoral variables which determine stability and leg length. Balancing these competing variables remains a core challenge in hip arthroplasty. The potential benefits of modular femoral stems have been overshadowed by higher rates of failure. The objective of this study was to assess the survivorship of a unique dual-modular femoral stem at an average 15-year follow-up period.

Methods

The records of all patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty with this device between 2004–2009 were reviewed. There were no exclusions for BMI or other factors. We examined the data with Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. The primary endpoint for survival was mechanical failure of the modular neck-body junction.

Results

The survivorship of this device in 172 subjects was 100% with none experiencing mechanical failure of the modular junction at an average of 15 years. 60 patients died of causes unrelated to their THA and 9 patients were lost to follow-up. There were three early (≤ 12 months) dislocations (1.7%), and seven total dislocations (4.1%). 16 patients underwent reoperations during the follow-up period, none for any complication of the modular junction. Radiographic results showed well-fixed femoral stems in all cases. There were no leg length discrepancies of greater than 10 mm, and 85% were within 5 mm.

Conclusion

There were no mechanical failures of the modular junction in any of the subjects over the average 15-year period, demonstrating that this dual-modular design is not associated with increased failure rates. We achieved a 1.7% early dislocation rate and a 4.1% total dislocation rate without any clinically significant leg length discrepancies.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a commonly performed orthopaedic procedure. Primary THA volume in the US is projected to grow by 71% to 635,000 procedures annually by the year 2030 [1], and another report estimates 850,000 THA/year in 2030, and 1.43 million THA procedures annually by 2040 [2].

Hip offset, version, and length are interdependent variables which determine stability and leg length. Selection of the best offset is critical to successful THA, to ensure stability and appropriate abductor function, yet this can present clinical challenges in those cases in which the degree of offset desired for stability causes an increased leg length. Balancing these competing variables remains a core challenge in hip arthroplasty [3] and accurate restoration of leg length and dynamic stability are essential to a successful THA [4].

Monoblock stems with modular femoral heads are limited in their ability to adjust offset and length compared to stems with additional modularity [5]. Modular, multi-piece femoral stems were introduced in the 1960’s in an effort to improve the anatomic restoration of hip offset and leg length. Some stems that possess modularity between the neck and proximal body (dual-modular) may allow fully independent adjustments in leg length and lateral offset, though many of these designs do not allow independent adjustment of these variables. Some dual-modular designs also allow adjustment of version.

Currently, the potential benefits of dual-modular femoral stems have been overshadowed by higher rates of failure compared to traditional devices, which is generally found to be around 5% [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. The dual-modular exchangeable-neck devices have demonstrated particularly poor results [12, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. However, some studies have shown promising results with other modular stem designs [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].

The senior author has used a unique dual-modular stem design for two decades with good clinical results. The objective of this study was to assess the survivorship of a dual-modular femoral stem possessing a unique design at an average 15-year follow-up period, with mechanical failure of the modular neck-body junction the primary endpoint. We hypothesized that the implant survivorship of this modular stem was comparable to the survivorship of clinically successful non-modular femoral stems at similar follow-up periods.

Patients and methods

Following Institutional Review Board approval, we performed an implant survivorship analysis utilizing the senior author’s institutional database and available electronic medical records. All cases were carefully planned preoperatively using anteroposterior pelvis x-rays and manual templating with selection of the most appropriate stem size for filling the femoral canal, and then the most appropriate modular neck that best reproduced the patient's normal offset and leg length. All procedures were primary THAs performed by the senior author using a standard posterior approach without posterior repair. Intraoperatively, leg lengths were measured clinically by comparing the relative position of the bent knee compared to the opposite extremity. All patients followed a standardized postoperative rehabilitation protocol allowing immediate full weight-bearing.

The study population consisted of 172 patients who underwent primary THA with a second-generation modular femoral stem between 2004 to 2009, providing an average of 15 years of follow-up data with analysis ending in December 2021. Indications for THA were primary degenerative arthritis (166), osteonecrosis/ischemic necrosis (5), and developmental dysplasia of the hip (1); revisions, inflammatory arthritis, and fractures were excluded. Using our research database and records, we identified 381 patients with these diagnoses who received a primary cementless hip replacement between 2004 and 2009. Of the 381 paitents, 172 patients received the study stem. During this time, our institution was involved in research protocols which specified other devices, thus a subset of all primary THA candiates received the study device. Otherwise, there was no exclusion for BMI or other factors such as diabetes or smoking history. We reviewed medical histories, databases, and contacted patients as necessary to determine their study implant status. We reviewed all available supine pelvis x-rays and performed magnification-corrected measurements of leg length before and after surgery. We collected information related to adverse events, implant survival and revision surgery, and any complications associated with the index THA.

Implants

The study femoral implant was the Omni Apex Modular™ second-generation femoral stem (Corin USA, Raynham, MA). The body and modular neck is made of titanium alloy and has a proximal titanium plasma sprayed surface. The anti-rotational pin is cobalt chromium alloy, which was changed from a diameter of 3.175 mm (first generation) to 4.775 mm to make it more robust and resistant to failure. It has a “fit and fill” design with a proximal-filling body and a cylindrical, splined, and split distal stem, implanted with a “ream and broach” surgical technique. The stem utilizes a modular “dual-press” connection mechanism (Fig. 1a) that seats the neck fully against the proximal surface of the body of the stem, significantly decreasing the likelihood of a gap. This subsequent elimination of micromotion, creates a final construct similar to monoblock designs (Fig. 1b, c, and d) [29, 31, 32]. The modular design of the neck fully uncouples the variables of lateral offset and vertical height, providing a number of options (Fig. 1e). Version angles, and head size are also adjusted independently. There is an offset/length chart that provides a match for any contemplated anatomic variance. (Fig. 2) Any stem body can be assembled with any modular neck option, with the exception that a neck with an offset greater than 45 mm should not be coupled with the two smallest stem sizes.

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Illustration of the dual-press mechanism, showing the proximal body, modular neck, locking bolt, and anti-rotational pin. b and c This figure depicts “exploded” and “assembled” views of the two modular femoral implant components. d This close-up photograph of the assembled implant shows that the neck and stem have no gap, converting into a monoblock construct similar to non-modular designs. e This illustration depicts some of the multiple neck options available for any stem

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

The illustration depicts the range of offset/length options available with this modular femoral system

Full size image

The acetabular components utilized were all press-fit titanium shells, with 12 of the 172 subjects receiving modular polyethylene liners and cobalt-chromium femoral heads with a diameter of either 28 mm or 32 mm, and the remaining 160 subjects receiving large-diameter metal-on-metal (MOM) articulations.

Statistical analysis

Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis was performed; end points were defined as (1) mechanical failure of the dual-modular junction and (2) revision surgery for failulre due to all reasons except MOM/ATLR. Patients who were deceased or lost to follow-up were censored. All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Results

The 172 patients included 71 men and 101 women with a mean age of 65 years (range, 33 – 94 years) at the time of surgery. 60 patients died of causes unrelated to their THA with their implant intact and 9 were lost to follow-up. Their mean body mass index (BMI) was 30.1 kg/M2 ± 5.8 kg/M2, with specific groups described in Table 1.

Table 1 Patient body mass index
Full size table

Of the 60 patients who died of causes unrelated to their THA, the average time to death was 7.2 ± 3.5 years post-THA (range, 0 – 10 years), and average age at death was 81. The nine patients who were lost to follow-up were followed for 9, 12, 16, 22, 35, 42, 44, 51, and 54 months with an average of 30 months. Emails, phone calls and letters were utilized to attempt to reconnect with subjects that were lost to follow up. Of the 60 that died and 9 that were lost to follow-up, none had experienced failure of their modular femoral stem up to the censure date.

There were 16 patients who underwent reoperations during the follow-up period. Ten subjects were revised at an average of 6.4 years post op for complications of large-diameter metal-on-metal articulations consisting of trunnionosis of the large-diameter cobalt-chromium head-titanium modular neck junction, elevated serum metal ion levels, and pseudotumor with adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR). Four of these MOM failures also had instability. There was one additional instability case which was not a large-diameter MOM case. The five instability cases were performed at 11 months, 2 years, 3 years, 7 years, and 8 years post-op; one subject had a 32 mm head, and the other four had large diameter MOM articulations (diameters 44, 46, 46, and 48 mm); Three subjects were revised for late joint infection (1 year, 3 years, and 8 years post-op) and two for acetabular loosening (Table 2).

Table 2 Reoperation diagnoses
Full size table

The femoral stem was removed in the three infection cases. All of the cases of MOM/ALTR dual-modular junctions were disassembled and then reassembled with a new modular neck. In the single instability case not associated with a failed large diameter MOM articulation, the modular neck component was exchanged for one with different version, offset and/or length; in all cases there was no further instability after the revision. In all 11 cases where the modular neck-stem junction was disassembled (10 MOM/ALTR, one isolated instability), the modular neck-stem junction was examined visually and found to be absent of any visible corrosion or any gross evidence of metallurgical failure or fracture. The femoral stem was retained in all 13 non-infection cases. Two other patients experienced a dislocation postoperatively, each before one year postop, treated with a closed reduction, and experienced no further instability.

We found no mechanical failures of any kind, including breakage or corrosion, of the modular neck-stem junction at the mean follow-up period of 15 years (range, 13.2—18.1). Statistical analysis of the data found the Kaplan–Meier survivorship with mechanical failure as the endpoint was 100% (Fig. 3a) and all reasons except for MOM/ALTR failures was just under 96% (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

a Survivorship curves with mechanical failure of the modular junction as endpoint. b Survivorship curves with all failure reasons except MOM/ALTR

Full size image

Radiographic review of the most recent films of all patients excepting the nine lost to follow-up revealed well-fixed stems with stable osseointegration in 100% of cases at an average of 60 months (range, 6 months – 16 years). There were no cases of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. There were no radiolucent lines around the coated portion of the stems, no subsidence, no lytic changes, and no pedestal formation (Fig. 4). There were no leg length discrepancies of greater than 10 mm, and 85% within 5 mm.

Fig. 4
figure 4

This is a representative postoperative radiograph demonstrating a well-fixed modular femoral stem

Full size image

Discussion

The objective of this study was to evaluate the average 15-year survivorship of a unique dual-modular femoral stem. We hypothesized that this implant would demonstrate survivorship comparable to that of a non-modular device. Our results confirmed this hypothesis, with no failures attributed to modularity of the femoral device. The authors believe that this is one of the largest studies with long term follow-up demonstrating 100% survivorship of a dual-modular femoral hip device.

Though there are unique advantages of dual modularity, numerous reports and systemic reviews have found that many modular designs have had high failure rates and recalls [8,9,10,11,12,13,14], and most surgeons have ceased using them in clinical practice [7]. The 2012 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report showed that the revision rate due to mechanical failure of modular stems compared to standard stems was 10.6% vs. 6.3% [6]. The problem became so widespread that several authors have published guidelines for evaluating and treating the potentially failed modular stem [33,34,35].

Failures have been especially obvious with the dual-taper exchangeable-neck designs, which share unique design weaknesses, leading to breakage [12, 17,18,19, 21, 22] and/or inflammation (ALTR) [15, 16, 20, 23, 36,37,38]. The additional modularity weakens the implant, which has been particularly problematic in obese patients [4, 8, 14, 19, 21, 23]. This has been observed primarily in the single metal couple, titanium-titanium modular neck-body designs, which may share an inadequately robust junction between the neck and stem body.

In response to the issue of implant breakage, some designs utilized a cobalt-chromium neck for increased strength, coupled with a titanium stem, which introduced mechanically-assisted crevice corrosion due to dissimilar metals, leading to ALTR [13, 38,39,40]. Corrosion can weaken the structural integrity of the stem, increasing risk of mechanical failure, and cause the generation of particulate debris, inducing inflammatory reactions [5, 11, 19,20,21,22, 38]. The recalled ABG II dual-taper system [23, 37, 38] as well as the Stryker Rejuvenate [15, 16, 20, 23] system have demonstrated this mode of failure.

None of our patients experienced any mechanical failure of the modular junction, breakage, or inflammation. Another report [29] has corroborated these excellent clinical results, though the first generation of this implant did exhibit breakage of the anti-rotation pin in some cases [29, 41], and others report corrosion of the pin [42]. A retrieval analysis [36] which included five cases of this stem, did not find any failure, substantial corrosion, or adverse local tissue reactions. The modular stem in this study does not have a dissimilar metal junction; both the neck and the stem are titanium alloy. The stem utilizes a “dual-press” modular connection mechanism that seats the neck fully against the proximal surface of the stem, significantly decreasing the likelihood of any gap and subsequent micromotion, allowing the assembled stem to function as a monoblock implant [29, 31, 32]. However, it is critical to fully seat the neck on the body during assembly; we have found that the original calibrated compression-limiting instrument cannot be relied upon in this regard and so utilized an alternant instrument without the compression limitation that generates a greater compressive force.

Compared to non-modular stems, dual-modular stems may allow for more anatomic restoration in leg length, hip offset, anteversion, and center of rotation, restoring each patient’s individual anatomy and biomechanics, possibly improving gait and hip stability [4, 7,8,9,10,11,12, 43,44,45]. Femoral offset (FO) ranges from 28 to 54 mm in the normal hip [46], and is > 45 mm in 31% of patients and > 50 mm in 12% [47]. A decrease in FO of 15% or more after THA leads to an alteration in the gait [48]. Preoperative templating of standard radiographs may underestimate FO by up to 20% on radiographs and therefore may not be restored after THA [48]. Offset was found to be restored to within 4 mm in only 25% of cases [49]. Soft tissue tension is approximately four-fold lower in recurrent dislocators and reduced FO was related to this decreased soft tissue tension [50]. Restoration of offset allows better soft-tissue balance, optimizing abductor function, reducing pain, impingement, wear and dislocation [4, 5, 13, 14].

In an effort to increase soft tissue tension, limb length may be inadvertently increased. Limb-length inequality remains a significant unsolved problem in THA [51], representing the most common reason for litigation after nerve injury, ranging from 12%-26% of lawsuits [52, 53]. Decoupling the variables of offset and length allows increased soft tissue tension through increased offset, without increased leg length [3].

While stability is influenced by both acetabular and femoral component position, the majority (65%) of dislocating THAs implanted with a posterior approach had a socket placed within the Lewinnek safe zone [54]. Another study of 7040 primary THAs revealed that this acetabular safe zone does not decrease the risk of dislocation [55], emphasizing the importance of femoral-side variables including offset, length, and version in determining hip stability. Accurate restoration of the three-dimensional geometry of the hip is crucial to hip function and implant survival [56]. Hip dislocations may increase with time, however, dislocation is usually detected in the first 3 to 6 months after surgery, with 75% occurring within the first year [57,58,59,60]. We had three patients dislocate within a year (1.7%), and one of these had revision surgery. The two early dislocations not requiring revision had head diameters ≤ 32 mm. The remainder of our dislocations (4, 2.4%) were late, and all associated with large diameter MOM hips. Overall, our dislocation rate was 4.1%, which is not low; however, a majority of these were in subjects with large diameter MOM hips with ALTR and substantial soft tissue damage. We used a conventional posterior approach without soft tissue repair of the capsule and short external rotators. Excluding the revised MOM cases, our dislocation rate was 0.6% with head size ≥ 36 mm. The incidence of dislocation after primary THA varies from 0.6% to 7% and most studies are from high-volume centers; the overall incidence in the community may be higher [61]. If instability is experienced with this device, its design allows in vivo dissassemby and modular neck exchange, allowing the surgeon to adjust offset, length and version without removing the stem itself, which has proven to be a useful though rarely required feature. The independent adjustment of offset and length is a powerful tool allowing a high intraoperative flexibility, including the ability to reduce the vertical height while simultaneously increasing offset, thus improving stability without compromising leg length.

Some argue that these potential disadvantages, plus cost considerations, and the paucity of clear-cut proven clinical advantages, limit support for the use of dual-modular stems in primary hip arthroplasty [10, 39, 62, 63]. Others support the use of dual-modular stems, when properly indicated, especially in cases of abnormal proximal femoral anatomy, avoiding obese patients with excessive offset [26,27,28, 30]. Modular stems have improved clinical and radiographic outcomes, including improved range of motion (ROM) and stability, in patients with abnormal proximal femoral anatomy such as dysplasia [27]. Cameron [64] has reported positively on the use of a proximally modular device, and states that the adjustability of version is beneficial. Others have reported that proximal modularity reduces hip dislocation rate, particularly in women, and that modular neck prostheses help to restore hip anatomy [30]. Modularity has been shown to significantly improve range of motion until impingment [5]. Benazzo et. al. reported a 97.5% survival at 11 years post-THA with a dual-modular stem [24].

There are limitations to our study, including its retrospective study design. Review of our records and electronic medical database did not allow us to follow-up with all patients; 9 (5%) of our patients were lost to follow-up at a mean of 4 years post-THA. Additionally, we did not perform posterior soft tissue repairs, which has been shown to decrease dislocation rate to equal that of alternative approaches [65,66,67,68]. Another limitation is that a majority of our cases used large diameter MOM, which is associated with a higher failure rate. Another weakness of our study is that we do not have metal ion levels on all subjects, this data is only available for the ten revisions performed due to MOM/ALVR-related failures.

Conclusion

It is ill-advised to use a femoral stem that adds modularity, with the attendant potential for complications, without gaining a clear advantage. We believe the benefits may outweigh the risks, as we achieved a low early dislocation rate (1.7%) in subjects treated with a posterior approach and no posterior repair, without any leg length discrepancies; our late dislocation rate (2.4%) was in subjects who had MOM articulations with ALTR and soft tissue damage, and so these may not be attributed to the stem. The robust modular junction design mitigates the risk, and the biomechanical advantages allowing for the precise restoration of anatomy, providing maximum stability and function, without leg length discrepancy concerns, is a powerful benefit. This study demonstrates 100% long-term survivorship of a dual-modular femoral stem, an equal or higher survivorship than some non-modular stems, and a higher survival rate versus other modular femoral stems. This dual-modular device is not associated with mechanical failure or associated corrosive or inflammatory processes.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials available on request from Dr. David Scott at dfscott@mac.com.

References

  1. Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg. 2018;100(17):1455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klug A, Gramlich Y, Rudert M, et al. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(10):3287–98. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00167-020-06154-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hariri S, Chun S, Cowan JB, Bragdon C, Malchau H, Rubash HE. Range of motion in a modular femoral stem system with a variety of neck options. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9):1625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sculco PK, Austin MS, Lavernia CJ, Rosenberg AG, Sierra RJ. Preventing Leg Length Discrepancy and Instability After Total Hip Arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2016;65:225.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Turley GA, Griffin DR, Williams MA. Effect of femoral neck modularity upon the prosthetic range of motion in total hip arthroplasty. Med Biol Eng Compu. 2014;52(8):685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Australian Orthopaedic Association Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Annual Report 2012. In. 2012. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/en-US/annual-reports-2012.

  7. Berry DJ. Utility of modular implants in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Colas S, Allalou A, Poichotte A, Piriou P, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M. Exchangeable Femoral Neck (Dual-Modular) THA Prostheses Have Poorer Survivorship Than Other Designs: A Nationwide Cohort of 324,108 Patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(8):2046.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Giori NJ. CORR Insights: High Risk of Failure With Bimodular Femoral Components in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(1):154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Krishnan H, Krishnan SP, Blunn G, Skinner JA, Hart AJ. Modular neck femoral stems. Bone Joint J. 2013;95 b(8):1011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mihalko WM, Wimmer MA, Pacione CA, Laurent MP, Murphy RF, Rider C. How have alternative bearings and modularity affected revision rates in total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3747.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pour AE, Borden R, Murayama T, Groll-Brown M, Blaha JD. High Risk of Failure With Bimodular Femoral Components in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(1):146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Su SL, Koch CN, Nguyen TM, Burket JC, Wright TM, Westrich GH. Retrieval Analysis of Neck-Stem Coupling in Modular Hip Prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zajc J, Moličnik A, Fokter SK. Dual Modular Titanium Alloy Femoral stem failure mechanisms and suggested clinical approaches. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(11):3078.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bernstein DT, Meftah M, Paranilam J, Incavo SJ. Eighty-six Percent Failure Rate of a Modular-Neck Femoral Stem Design at 3 to 5 Years: Lessons Learned. J Bone Joint Surg. 2016;98(12):e49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooper HJ, Urban RM, Wixson RL, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ. Adverse local tissue reaction arising from corrosion at the femoral neck-body junction in a dual-taper stem with a cobalt-chromium modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg. 2013;95(10):865.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dangles CJ, Altstetter CJ. Failure of the modular neck in a total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(7):1169.e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellman MB, Levine BR. Fracture of the modular femoral neck component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):196.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fokter SK, Rudolf R, Moličnik A. Titanium alloy femoral neck fracture–clinical and metallurgical analysis in 6 cases. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(2):197.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lanting BA, Teeter MG, Vasarhelyi EM, Ivanov TG, Howard JL, Naudie DD. Correlation of corrosion and biomechanics in the retrieval of a single modular neck total hip arthroplasty design: modular neck total hip arthroplasty system. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(1):135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Skendzel JG, Blaha JD, Urquhart AG. Total hip arthroplasty modular neck failure. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(2):338.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sotereanos NG, Sauber TJ, Tupis TT. Modular femoral neck fracture after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):196.e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Werner SD, Bono JV, Nandi S, Ward DM, Talmo CT. Adverse tissue reactions in modular exchangeable neck implants: a report of two cases. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(3):543.e13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Benazzo F, Rossi SM, Cecconi D, Piovani L, Ravasi F. Mid-term results of an uncemented femoral stem with modular neck options. Hip Int. 2010;20(4):427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cameron H, McTighe T. Experience with Modular Necks for Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty. Reconstr Rev. 2016;6(1):13–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lex JR, Welch MD, See A, Edwards TC, Stavropoulos NA, Babis GC. Systematic review of primary total hip arthroplasty using titanium-titanium modular-neck prostheses: the true risk of revision. Hip Int. 2021;31(3):295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Miki H, Sugano N. Modular neck for prevention of prosthetic impingement in cases with excessively anteverted femur. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011;26(9):944.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Park CW, Lim SJ, Park YS. Modular Stems: Advantages and Current Role in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. Hip Pelvis. 2018;30(3):147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tkach T, McTighe T. The 16-Year Evolution of Proximal Modular Stem Design – Eliminating Failure of Modular Junction. Reconstr Rev. 2017;7(3):29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Traina F, De Clerico M, Biondi F, Pilla F, Tassinari E, Toni A. Sex differences in hip morphology: is stem modularity effective for total hip replacement? The J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(Suppl6):121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McTighe T. Cementless Modular Stems. J Implant Surg Res Found. 2002;1:1–9. Update April 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McTighe T, Brazil D, Keppler L, Keggi J, McPherson E. Metallic Modular Taper Junctions in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Reconstr Rev. 2015;5(2):29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kwon YM. Evaluation of the painful dual taper modular neck stem total hip Arthroplasty: do they all require revision? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(7):1385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kwon YM, Fehring TK, Lombardi AV, Barnes CL, Cabanela ME, Jacobs JJ. Risk stratification algorithm for management of patients with dual modular taper total hip arthroplasty: consensus statement of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the Hip Society. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(11):2060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Meneghini RM, Hallab NJ, Jacobs JJ. Evaluation and treatment of painful total hip arthroplasties with modular metal taper junctions. Orthopedics. 2012;35(5):386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kop AM, Keogh C, Swarts E. Proximal component modularity in THA–at what cost? An implant retrieval study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(7):1885.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Molloy DO, Munir S, Jack CM, Cross MB, Walter WL, Walter WK Sr. Fretting and corrosion in modular-neck total hip arthroplasty femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg. 2014;96(6):488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Walsh CP, Hubbard JC, Nessler JP, Markel DC. Revision of Recalled Modular Neck Rejuvenate and ABG Femoral Implants. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(5):822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carothers JT, Archibeck MJ, Tripuraneni KR. Modular Versus Nonmodular Femoral Necks for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015;44(9):411.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Annual Report. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, 2012. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/en-US/annual-reports-2012.

  41. Patel A, Bliss J, Calfee RP, Froehlich J, Limbird R. Modular femoral stem-sleeve junction failure after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(7):1143.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kent M, Edmondson M, Ebert J, Nivbrant N, Kop A, Wood D, De Steiger R. Stem Migration and Fretting Corrosion of the Antirotation Pin in the K2/Apex Hip System. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(3):727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Archibeck MJ, Cummins T, Carothers J, Junick DW, White RE Jr. A comparison of two implant systems in restoration of hip geometry in arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Duwelius PJ, Hartzband MA, Burkhart R, Carnahan C, Blair S, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL. Clinical results of a modular neck hip system: hitting the “bull’s-eye” more accurately. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010;39(10 Suppl):2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sakai T, Sugano N, Ohzono K, Nishii T, Haraguchi K, Yoshikawa H. Femoral anteversion, femoral offset, and abductor lever arm after total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral neck system. J Orthop Sci. 2002;7(1):62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Preininger B, Schmorl K, von Roth P, Winkler T, Matziolis G, Perka C, Tohtz S. Femoral Offset (3D) in Patients without Osteoarthritis - Index Values from 200 Hip Joints. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:578.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G, Durante E. Three-dimensional hip anatomy in osteoarthritis Analysis of the femoral offset. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6):990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sariali E, Klouche S, Mouttet A, Pascal-Moussellard H. The effect of femoral offset modification on gait after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(6):721.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ogawa T, Takao M, Hamada H, Sakai T, Sugano N. Soft tissue tension is four times lower in the unstable primary total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2018;42(9):2059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Desai AS, Dramis A, Board TN. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty: a review of literature. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2013;6(4):336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Bokshan SL, Ruttiman RJ, DePasse JM, Eltorai AEM, Rubin LE, Palumbo MA, Daniels AH. Reported Litigation Associated With Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(12):3573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Samuel LT, Sultan AA, Rabin JM, Surace PA, Yao B, Moskal JT, Mont MA. Medical Malpractice Litigation Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive, Nationwide Analysis of the Past Decade. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7S):S102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW. What Safe Zone? The Vast Majority of Dislocated THAs Are Within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for Acetabular Component Position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pour AE, Schwarzkopf R, Patel KP, Anjaria M, Lazennec JY, Dorr LD. Is Combined Anteversion Equally Affected by Acetabular Cup and Femoral Stem Anteversion? J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(7):2393.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Flecher X, Ollivier M, Argenson JN. Lower limb length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(1 Suppl):S9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bolland BJ, Whitehouse SL, Timperley AJ. Indications for early hip revision surgery in the UK–a re-analysis of NJR data. Hip Int. 2012;22(2):145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Berry DJ. Unstable total hip arthroplasty: detailed overview. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:265.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Coventry MB. Late dislocations in patients with Charnley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1985;67(6):832.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Padgett DE, Warashina H. The unstable total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;420:72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Barrack RL. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(2):89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Dunbar MJ. The proximal modular neck in THA: a bridge too far: affirms. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Duwelius PJ, Burkhart B, Carnahan C, Branam G, Ko LM, Wu Y, Froemke C, Wang L, Grunkemeier G. Modular versus nonmodular neck femoral implants in primary total hip arthroplasty: which is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(4):1240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cameron HU. The proximal modular neck in THA: a bridge too far: opposes. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Loiba V, Stucinskas J, Robertsson O, Wingstrand H, Tarasevicius S. The analysis of posterior soft tissue repair durability after total hip arthroplasty in primary osteoarthritis patients. Hip Int. 2015;25(5):420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. McLawhorn AS, Potter HG, Cross MB, Boettner F, Lim W, Lee YY, Pellicci PM. Posterior Soft Tissue Repair After Primary THA is Durable at Mid-term Followup: A Prospective MRI Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3183.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Tripuraneni KR, Munson NR, Archibeck MJ, Carothers JT. Acetabular Abduction and Dislocations in Direct Anterior vs Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective, Matched Cohort Study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(10):2299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhang D, Chen L, Peng K, Xing F, Wang H, Xiang Z. Effectiveness and safety of the posterior approach with soft tissue repair for primary total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. OrthopTraumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(1):39.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author disclaimers

David F. Scott, MD: consultant, research funding, OMNIlife, Inc.

Funding

This work was supported by research funding from OMNIlife, Inc., Raynham, MA, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University, 412 E Spokane Falls, Blvd, Spokane, WA, 99202, USA

    David F. Scott, Kade Eppich, Crystal Lederhos Smith & Michael Johnston

  2. Spokane Joint Replacement Center, Inc., Spokane, WA, USA

    David F. Scott & Celeste Gray

  3. University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Edin Mehić

Authors
  1. David F. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kade Eppich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edin Mehić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Celeste Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Crystal Lederhos Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.E.—Collected data, performed literature review and drafted manuscript. E.M.—Collected data, performed literature review and drafted manuscript. D.S.—Collected data, performed literature review and drafted manuscript. M.J.—Collected data, performed literature review and drafted manuscript. C.G.—Collected data, drafted manuscript, and managed administrative details. C.S.—Performed statistical analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Johnston.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board obtained prior to study start. Informed consent was gained by all subjects prior to inclusion in study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. No information or images that require consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scott, D.F., Eppich, K., Mehić, E. et al. 15-year survivorship of a unique dual-modular femoral stem in primary hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 312 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12891-024-07422-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12891-024-07422-0

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us