International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 2227–2233 | Cite as

Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

  • Ivan De MartinoEmail author
  • Rocco D’Apolito
  • Allina A. Nocon
  • Thomas P. Sculco
  • Peter K. Sculco
  • Mathias P. Bostrom
Original Paper



Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty.


This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29–90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2–10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81–261). A Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR.


A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision.


Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.


Revision total hip arthroplasty Proximal femoral replacement Megaprosthesis Dislocation Bone loss 



This work was performed at the Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.


  1. 1.
    Sakellariou VI, Babis GC (2014) Management bone loss of the proximal femur in revision hip arthroplasty: update on reconstructive options. World J Orthop 5:614–622. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2003) Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85–A:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engh CA, Ellis TJ, Koralewicz LM, McAuley JP, Engh CA (2002) Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss: minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 17:955–960. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buttaro MA, Comba F, Piccaluga F (2009) Proximal femoral reconstructions with bone impaction grafting and metal mesh. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2325–2334. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS (2009) Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem. J Arthroplast 24:751–758. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee SH, Ahn YJ, Chung SJ, Kim BK, Hwang JH (2009) The use of allograft prosthesis composite for extensive proximal femoral bone deficiencies: a 2- to 9.8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplast 24:1241–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malkani AL, Paiso JM, Sim FH (2000) Proximal femoral replacement with megaprosthesis. Instr Course Lect 49:141–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N, Wade F, Trappler R, Hozack WJ, Sim FH (2007) Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1036–1043. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Viste A, Perry KI, Taunton MJ, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP (2017) Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss: a review of outcomes. Bone Joint J 99–B:325–329. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grammatopoulos G, Alvand A, Martin H, Whitwell D, Taylor A, Gibbons CLMH (2016) Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications. Bone Joint J 98–B:1463–1470. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grauer JD, Amstutz HC, O’Carroll PF, Dorey FJ (1989) Resection arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers B a, Sternheim A, De Iorio M, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2012) Proximal femoral allograft in revision hip surgery with severe femoral bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 27:829–836.e1. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parvizi J, Sim FH (2004) Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:169–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murray WR, Lucas DB, Inman VT (1964) Femoral head and neck resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:1184–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, Vilardi A, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA (2014) What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:820–830. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandrasekar CR, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu A, Buckley L (2009) Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:108–112. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rasouli MR, Porat MD, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J (2012) Proximal femoral replacement and allograft prosthesis composite in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures with significant proximal bone loss. Orthop Surg 4:203–210. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friesecke C, Plutat J, Block A (2005) Revision arthroplasty with use of a total femur prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2693–2701. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray DW, Carr a J, Bulstrode C (1993) Survival analysis of joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:697–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Korim MT, Esler CNA, Ashford RU (2014) Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions. J Arthroplast 29:2117–2121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haddad FS, Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (2000) Circumferential allograft replacement of the proximal femur. A critical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 371:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maury AC, Pressman A, Cayen B, Zalzal P, Backstein D, Gross A (2006) Proximal femoral allograft treatment of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:953–958. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Du Z, Tang S, Yang R, Tang X, Ji T, Guo W (2018) Use of an artificial ligament decreases hip dislocation and improves limb function after total femoral prosthetic replacement following femoral tumor resection. J Arthroplast 33:1507–1514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barry JJ, Thielen Z, Sing DC, Yi PH, Hansen EN, Ries M (2017) Length of endoprosthetic reconstruction in revision knee arthroplasty is associated with complications and reoperations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:72–79. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations