International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 2209–2216 | Cite as

A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions

  • Filippo CasellaEmail author
  • Fabio Favetti
  • Gabriele Panegrossi
  • Matteo Papalia
  • Francesco Falez
Original Paper



In the last three decades, total hip replacement in young patient became a habitual procedure.

Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants).


During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, etiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique.


We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I–IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a “conservative revision procedure” using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two case of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture.


If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a “one-time” opportunity for young and active people. A “conservative revision” is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.


Total hip replacement Hip revision Arthroplasty Conservative 


  1. 1.
    Wyness L, Vale L, McCormack K, Grant A, Brazzelli M (2004) The effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing: a systematic review of the available evidence published before 2002. MC Health Serv Res 4:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pipino F, Keller A (2006) Tissue-sparing surgery: 25 years’ experience with femoral neck preserving hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 7(1):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morrey BF, Adams RA, Kessler M (2000) A conservative femoral replacement for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82-B(7):952–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falez F, Casella F, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Barresi C (2008) Perspectives of metaphyseal conservative stems. J Orthopaed Traumatol 9(1):49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim SM, HAN SB, Rhyu KH, Yoo JJ, Oh KJ, Yoo JH, Lee KJ, Lim SJ (2018) Periprosthetic femoral fracture as cause of early revision after short stem hip arthroplasty- a multicentric analysis. Int Orthop 42(9):2069–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Avhad VV, Vera R, Gross AE, Kuzyk PR (2015) Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39(10):1927–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paprosky WG, Burnett RS (2002) Assessment and classification of bone stock deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 31(8):459–464PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falez F, Casella F, La Cava F, Favetti F (2007) Nonunion in an unnoticed neck fracture in resurfacing total hip arthroplasty – case report. Hip Int 17(13):179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morlock MM, Bishop N, Ruther W, Delling G, Hahn M (2006) Biomechanical, morphological, and histological analysis of early failures in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 220(2):333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amstuz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ. (2004) Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 86A (9); 1874–1877Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Indelli PF, Vail TP, Dominguez D, Pickering T. (2005) Resurfacing hip replacement: surgical technique and clinical results with minimum 1-year follow-up. Paper presented at 90th Nation Congress of Italian Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Society. 9-13th of October 2005Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li D, Hu Q, Kang P, Yang J, Zhou Z, Shen B, Pei F. (2018) Reconstructed the bone stock after femoral bone loss in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures using cortical strut allograft and impacted cancellous allograft. Int Orthop doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reikeras O. Femoral revision surgery using a fully hydroxyapatite-coated stem: a cohort study of twenty-two to twenty-seven years. (2017) Int Orthop 41(2): 271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cavagnaro L, Formica M, Basso M, Zanirato A, Divano S, Felli L (2018) Femoral revision with primary cementless stem: a systemic review of the literature. Muscoloskelet Surg 102(1):1–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canovas F, Putman S, Girard J, Roche O, Bonnomet F, Le Beguec P (2018) Global radiological score for cementless revision stem. Int Orthop 42(5):1007–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS (2008) European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90B(12):1576–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu R, Hofstaetter JC, Sullivan T, Costi K, Howie DW, Solomon LB (2013) Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(7):2844–2847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Affatato S, Comitini S, Fosco M, Toni A, Tigani D (2016) Radiological identification of Zweimuller-type femoral stem prosthesis in revision cases. Int Ortop 40(11):2261–2269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic and Traumatologic DepartmentSanto Spirito General HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.Orthopaedic and Traumatologic DepartmentNuova ItorRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations