Modular femoral stem provides significant flexibility in total hip revision arthroplasty. There have been few clinical studies that have dealt with modular stem. We have evaluated the clinical and radiographic performance of 59 patients with distal fix modular Link MP stem. The average follow-up period was 6.4 years. The average Harris hip score was improved from 47 to 87.6. Of 19 patients with trochanteric osteotomy, greater trochanter was displaced in four patients. Re-revision was done to five patients. Three were for subsidence, one of them showed dissociation of the coupling part and the other two were for a nonunion of osteotomy site. There was no statistical relation (p=0.40) between stem subsidence and bone deficiency; the subsidence may have been too small for the canal. As a result of last follow-up, survival rate was 91.5 %(CI 95%, 89–101), but there was no case of recurrent dislocation or femoral stem fracture.

Introduction: In case of massive bone defect, femoral stem revision may cause significant problems to the orthopaedic surgeons. The periprosthetic infection introduces a further element of complication which often leads to complex surgical strategies. The aim of this study was to assess the preliminary results of femoral revision with modular resection femoral stems in a selected group of patients with infected total hip arthroplasty and extensive bone defect. Materials and Methods: The study group included five patients (three women – two men) with an average age of 72 years (range 62–81 years). From 2006 to 2008 the patients underwent a prosthetic femoral revision with resection modular stems to treat a septic loosened primary hip prosthesis (one case) or revision hip prosthesis (four cases). The bacteria responsible for the infection were MRSE in three cases, MSSE and Str. Agalactie in one case, Proteus Mirabilis in one case. Three patients were treated in election for septic loosening of hip implant and two were admitted in our Department as emergency for a periproshtetic femoral fracture (Duncan type B3). In all the patients the femoral bone defect was grade III-B according to Paprosky classification of femoral bone deficiency. One patient with periproshtetic femoral fracture underwent a one-stage prosthetic revision and four patients sustained a two-stage prosthetic revision. In one patient a local flap was performed and Vaacum Assisted Therapy was applied in order to treat an associated loss of substance. The patients underwent periodical clinical controls in which the result has been evaluated by means of Merle-d’Aubigné hip score. Results: The follow-up period ranged from 10 to 28 months. We observed one case of recurrence of infection in the patient treated with a one-stage revision. At present, we did not observe signs of infection in the remaining four patients who underwent a two-stage revision. As for functional result, four patients walked with supports and one without them. No patient referred moderate or severe residual pain. Discussion: The preservation of bone stock is one of the most important goals in prosthetic revision procedures. In some circumstances the amount of femoral bone loss can be so wide to prevent the application of conventional or modular uncemented femoral stems. In these selected cases cemented modular resection femoral stems may represent the only available option for femoral reconstruction. In our clinical experience this solution offered altogether successful outcomes. In our opinion two-stage revision is the preferable surgical choice

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) following hip arthroplasty are complex injuries. This study evaluates patient demographic characteristics, management, outcomes, and risk factors associated with PPF subtypes over a decade.