Femoral Bone Remodeling In Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Use Of Modular Compared With Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems The Role Of Stem Length And Stiffness

Background: To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared periprosthetic bone remodeling around monoblock versus modular tapered fluted titanium stems with different stem length and thickness.Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed on 139 consecutive total hip arthroplasties (THAs) revised with a tapered fluted modular titanium stem and 114 consecutive THAs revised with a tapered fluted monoblock titanium stem. The latest follow-up radiographs were compared with immediate postoperative radiographs to assess bone restoration in residual osteolytic areas, femoral stress-shielding, spot-welds, and radiolucent lines. Diameter and medullary canal filling of the 2 stems were measured.Results: More patients in the monoblock group demonstrated osseous restoration than in the modular group (p = 0.009), and the modular stem exerted more severe stress-shielding on the femur (p < 0.001). Stem tip spot-welds developed in 88.5% of modular stems compared with 47.4% of the monoblock stems (p < 0.001). Spot-welds developed in 38.8% of modular stems at the modular junction. Partial or circumferential radiolucent lines were observed at the proximal segment of 30.9% of modular stems, compared with 14.0% of monoblock stems (p = 0.002).Conclusions: Compared with the longer and thinner monoblock stems, modular stems had less proximal osseous restoration in residual osteolytic areas and more severe femoral stress-shielding, stem tip spot-welds, and radiolucent lines around the stems, which were stiffer and had a shorter distal section. The stem diameter and stiffness (which were influenced by stem length, curvature, and modularity) determined bone remodeling patterns.