PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology1 citationsOpen Access

Do modular tapered long stems differ in stability and function? A prospective comparison of two stems in complex femoral revision THA

View Full Paper
MFM. H. FahmyMSMostafa Ahmed Shawky

Key Points

  • This research aims to compare the stability and functional outcomes of two types of modular tapered long stems in complex femoral revision THA.
  • Single-center randomized prospective study with 110 patients undergoing femoral revision rTHA
  • Patients received either Type A or Type B stems
  • Radiographs analyzed for subsidence, osseointegration, and limb-length restoration
  • Functional outcomes assessed using Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, and EQ-VAS
  • Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and comparisons
  • Both stem groups showed high radiological stability with subsidence of 1.3 mm (Type A) and 1.5 mm (Type B)
  • Osseointegration achieved in over 92% of cases
  • Harris Hip Score improved significantly in both groups, with > 80% achieving good-to-excellent outcomes
  • Low and comparable complication rates were noted
  • Five-year survivorship was high: 98.2% (Type A) and 97.6% (Type B)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: )-have limited direct comparative evidence. This study aimed to prospectively compare radiographic stem subsidence (primary outcome), as well as functional outcomes, complications, survivorship, and secondary outcomes, between Type A and Type B modular long stems in femoral rTHA. METHODS: In this single-center randomized prospective study, 110 patients undergoing femoral revision rTHA were randomly assigned to receive either Type A (n = 55) or Type B (n = 55) stems. All procedures were performed by experienced revision surgeons under standardized perioperative and rehabilitation protocols. Radiographs were analyzed for stem subsidence, osseointegration, and limb-length restoration. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and European Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) at baseline and final follow-up (mean 61.4 months). Complications and stem survivorship were recorded prospectively. Statistical analysis included paired and unpaired comparisons, correlation, regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS: Baseline demographics and femoral defect severity were comparable. Both groups achieved high radiological stability, with mean distal subsidence of 1.3 ± 0.7 mm (Type A) and 1.5 ± 0.9 mm (Type B; p = 0.24), and osseointegration in > 92% of cases. Limb-length and offset restoration were similar. HHS improved significantly in both groups (Type A: 44.7 → 88.1; Type B: 45.1 → 87.3; p 80% achieving good-to-excellent outcomes. Complication rates were low and comparable. Five-year stem survivorship was 98.2% (Type A) and 97.6% (Type B). Early full weight-bearing and lower Paprosky defect grades independently predicted superior functional outcomes, whereas stem type did not. CONCLUSIONS: Both Type A and Type B modular tapered fluted stems demonstrated durable fixation, minimal subsidence, low complication rates, and excellent mid-term functional recovery. Radiographic stem subsidence did not differ between groups, indicating that design variations do not significantly affect clinical outcomes. These findings support the use of modular tapered fluted stems as reliable solutions in complex femoral rTHA.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Fahmy et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69faa2b504f884e66b533397https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-026-00925-7
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper