Original Research

Modular Versus Nonmodular Femoral Necks for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Am J Orthop. 2015 September;44(9):411-414

References

1. Barrack RL. Modularity of prosthetic implants. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994;2(1):16-25.

2. Cameron HU. Modularity in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(3):332-334.

3. Hozack WJ, Mesa JJ, Rothman RF. Head–neck modularity for total hip arthroplasty. Is it necessary? J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(4):397-399.

4. Holt GE, Christie MJ, Schwartz HS. Trabecular metal endoprosthetic limb salvage reconstruction of the lower limb. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(7):1079-1089.

5. Sporer SM, Obar RJ, Bernini PM. Primary total hip arthroplasty using a modular proximally coated prosthesis in patients older than 70: two to eight year results. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(2):197-203.

6. Spitzer AI. The S-ROM cementless femoral stem: history and literature review. Orthopedics. 2005;28(9 suppl):s1117-s1124.

7. Mumme T, Müller-Rath R, Andereya S, Wirtz DC. Uncemented femoral revision arthroplasty using the modular revision prosthesis MRP-TITAN revision stem. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(1):56-77.

8. Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, et al. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop. 2000;24(3):134-138.

9. Lakstein D, Backstein D, Safir O, Kosashvili Y, Gross AE. Revision total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated modular stem: 5 to 10 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(5):1310-1315.

10. Bolognesi MP, Pietrobon R, Clifford PE, Vail TP. Comparison of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve and a porous-coated sleeve with a modular revision hip stem. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(12):2720-2725.

11. Huot Carlson JC, Van Citters DW, Currier JH, Bryant AM, Mayor MB, Collier JP. Femoral stem fracture and in vivo corrosion of retrieved modular femoral hips. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(7):1389-1396.e1.

12. Gilbert JL, Mehta M, Pinder B. Fretting crevice corrosion of stainless steel stem–CoCr femoral head connections: comparisons of materials, initial moisture, and offset length. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;88(1):162-173.

13. 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):1885-1894.

14. 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 Am. 2013;95(10):865-872.

15. Vundelinckx BJ, Verhelst LA, De Schepper J. Taper corrosion in modular hip prostheses: analysis of serum metal ions in 19 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(7):1218-1223.

16. Kouzelis A, Georgiou CS, Megas P. Dissociation of modular total hip arthroplasty at the neck–stem interface without dislocation. J Orthop Traumatol. 2012;13(4):221-224.

17. Sotereanos NG, Sauber TJ, Tupis TT. Modular femoral neck fracture after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):196.e7-e9.

18. Wodecki P, Sabbah D, Kermarrec G, Semaan I. New type of hip arthroplasty failure related to modular femoral components: breakage at the neck–stem junction. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(6):741-744.

19. Dorn U, Neumann D, Frank M. Corrosion behavior of tantalum-coated cobalt-chromium modular necks compared to titanium modular necks in a simulator test. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):831-835.

20. Carothers JT, White RE, Tripuraneni KR, Hattab MW, Archibeck MJ. Lessons learned from managing a prospective, private practice joint replacement registry: a 25-year experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):537-543.

21. 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 Rel Res. 2011;469(2):443-446.

22. Duwelius PJ, Hartzband MA, Burkhart R, et al. Clinical results of a modular neck hip system: hitting the “bull’s-eye” more accurately. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10 suppl):2-6.

23. Duwelius PJ, Burkhart B, Carnahan C, et al. Modular versus nonmodular neck femoral implants in primary total hip arthroplasty: which is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(4):1240-1245.

A second limitation is that a significant number of Kinectiv stems (132) had a head center within 4 mm in length and 2 mm of offset of the nearest M/L Taper stem. We carefully template every primary THA to determine the plan that will optimize component size and position and restore length and offset. More options for achieving these goals are available when templating with the intention of using the Kinectiv modular neck. The neck cut and position of the stem proximally or distally in the proximal femur may not need to be so exact, as the additional options may be able to accommodate minor inaccuracies. Thus, the reported percentage of clinically indistinguishable head centers (12%) may underestimate the actual number of modular stems that could have been replaced with a nonmodular stem.

Third, this study did not evaluate the effect of the modular junction on ease of irrigation and débridement with head/neck and polyethylene exchange in cases of infection, or on ease of head/neck and polyethylene exchange for revision. In addition, the study did not evaluate other cases of instability involving a nonmodular stem that otherwise could have been solved with simple revision of the head/neck combination, avoiding revision of the entire stem and/or the acetabular component. We reported revisions for infection and for instability, but comprehensive assessment and comparison were beyond the scope of this study. Certainly ease of revision of the head and neck is a factor that could favor use of the modularity.

Fourth, this was not a clinical outcome study comparing 2 different femoral stems. We sought only to determine how often a modular neck was chosen that resulted in a head center that would have been unavailable to the non-modular stem suggesting that the patient was receiving a reconstructive benefit in exchange for the modularity. However, 2 recent reports have noted no clinical benefit at 2-year follow-up with use of the modular neck compared with the nonmodular stem.^22,23

Though the M/L Taper with Kinectiv technology has, thus far, performed well, PFNSM should be used with caution in light of recently reported failures at the neck–stem junction.14,16-18 Our study results suggest that most (≥56%) of the modular stems used could have been reconstructed as acceptably with a nonmodular stem, and therefore a reconstructive benefit was not realized in trade for the potential risks of proximal modularity. Only 2 of the 9 revision cases saw a clear advantage in being able to change the modular neck geometry in the revision setting. Given the recently reported failures and the high-profile recall of a modular stem,14 we recommend restricting the modular stem to cases that cannot be adequately reconstructed with the nonmodular option.