Modular Stems: Advantages and Current Role in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Chan-Woo Park; Seung-Jae Lim; Youn-Soo Park

doi:10.5371/hp.2018.30.3.147

Journal List > Hip Pelvis > v.30(3) > 1100595

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Lim, and Park: Modular Stems: Advantages and Current Role in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Review Article

Hip & Pelvis 2018; 30(3): 147-155.

Published online: 4 September 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2018.30.3.147

Modular Stems: Advantages and Current Role in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Chan-Woo Park, MD, Seung-Jae Lim, MD, PhD, Youn-Soo Park, MD, PhD

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint request to Youn-Soo Park, MD, PhD. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea. TEL: +82-2-3410-3504, FAX: +82-2-3410-0061, ys3.park@samsung.com

Received 3 July 2018 Accepted 18 July 2018

Korean Hip Society

(open-access, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Using modular femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty enables surgeons to make fine adjustments to individual joints and offers intraoperative flexibility. The concept of modularity has been developed in numerous shapes, resulting in a vast range of options. Among them, the greatest achievement has been made for prostheses with modular proximal sleeves. The use of these implants has resulted in excellent mid- to long-term results in a number of cases. Although the use of tapered stems with a broaching technique is gaining popularity in straightforward primary surgeries, modular femoral implants are still associated with a number of potential challenges (e.g., developmental dysplasia of the hip, infection sequelae, and skeletal dysplasia). Based on published results, it is advisable to consider it as an option for complicated cases where the proximal femur is severely deformed.

Keywords: Hip replacement arthroplasty, Modular stem

INTRODUCTION

The goal of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is to restore natural biomechanics of the hip joint. To achieve this goal, a number of innovative implants have been designed by pioneers of THA. The idea of stem modularity enables fine tuning of the joint by affording substantial surgical flexibility. Due to its versatility, various modular stem designs have been introduced1 2 3).

Despite concerns with possible corrosion and/or failure at the modular interface4 5 6), complex surgical procedures7) and high costs, modular stems are being widely used in both primary and revision surgeries. Although tapered stem designs are now gaining popularity in primary cases, femoral implants with modular proximal sleeve are still associated with a number of potential challenges8 9 10 11 12 13 14). In this report, the types and advantages of contemporary modular stems are introduced; our experience with their use in complex primary THAs are also reported.

TYPES OF MODULAR STEMS

Various modular stem shapes have been developed, and currently available modular stems can be broadly classified as: i) proximal, ii) mid-stem or iii) distal based on the location of modular junctions1 3).

Proximal modular stems have the largest variations in their design styles (e.g., modular heads, shoulders, necks, collars and sleeves). Compared to the original Chanley's monoblock stem which had a body, neck, and head as one unit, almost all modern femoral stems provide proximal modularity by using a modular head. Modular proximal shoulders had been developed based on European experience in the 1970s. There are numerous types of proximal bodies and fixation mechanisms to adjust the medial offset, vertical height, and version to compensate for deformities of proximal femurs1).

Modular neck designs also allow operators to choose the appropriate degree and length of the neck for desired stability and range of motion3) (Fig. 1). However, most implants with modular necks were withdrawn from the market because of junctional problems15 16 17 18 19). Recently, there has been high incidence of failure due to fretting corrosion at the junction of cobalt-chromium modular neck and titanium body. Corrosion at the modular interface generates metallic debris and ions responsible for hypersensitivity, toxic synovitis, osteolysis, and pseudotumor20 21 22 23).

Mid-stem modularity is efficient in a complex revision surgery in which the femur has poor proximal bone stock24 25 26 27) (Fig. 2). Under such conditions, the stem should be fixated at the distal diaphysis to gain substantial stability and the mismatch between proximal and distal femoral anatomy can be overcome with mid-stem modularity.

Distal modularity was initially developed to increase distal fixation and reduce thigh pain by inserting a device at the stem tip. However, it has failed to show clinical relevance1).

MODULAR FEMORAL PROSTHESES WITH PROXIMAL SLEEVES

To date, the greatest achievements in the history of modular stems are those with a proximal sleeve. In 1956, Konstantin Sivash, a Russian orthopedic surgeon first developed a hip implant which had an uncemented stem and cup with metal-on-metal articulation28 29). In 1967, he modified his original stem by applying a proximal modular sleeve to ensure maximal contact between the bone and the implant30 31) (Fig. 3). Four years later, an American company acquired the license for the Sivash stem. After adding coronal slots and 8 flutes to the distal stem, and applying porous coating at the proximal sleeve, the stem was renamed “SRN”. In 1982, the stem was again modified and renamed “S-ROM”. It has been continuously used without major changes since 1985.

ADVANTAGES OF MODULAR SLEEVE PROSTHESES

Tight fixation between the proximal metaphysis and the modular sleeve ensures that the S-ROM stem provides significant proximal stability independent of proximal femoral geometry8 9 32 33 34 35). At the same time, the implant can have considerable distal rotational stability when designed with a fluted long stem. The surface of the proximal sleeve has a shape of steps with porous coating, which enables great initial fixability and durable stability by a bone ingrowth.

The major advantage of the S-ROM hip system is that it can be modulated intraoperatively according to femoral anatomies. A surgeon can choose the appropriate sleeve by selecting from various height and width options to match a specific metaphyseal morphology. In addition, there are multiple stem options with different neck styles which enables surgeons to modify medial and vertical offsets. Furthermore, stems with varying curvatures and lengths are available. There are a total of 10,398 possible combinations of sleeves, stems, and heads. These combination can be almost infinite considering independent rotation (or version) of the stem36). This means that a surgeon can modify the biomechanics of the femur without concern for implant stability.

OUTCOMES OF MODULAR SLEEVE IMPLANTS

The S-ROM modular prosthesis was originally introduced to respond to complex reconstructive surgery. In practice, it was widely used in almost all situations including simple primary THAs. It was first implanted by Hugh Cameron in July 1984. Later, he reported8) that there was no aseptic loosening among 202 consecutive THAs after 2 to 8 years of observation. In radiographs, he found osteolytic lesions around proximal stems while, only one osteolysis was visible beyond the proximal sleeve. Christie et al.37) also reported 175 stems with a mean follow-up of 5.3 years. Only one stem was revised for aseptic loosening and 89% showed radiographic bone-ingrowth.

Longer follow-up showed excellent clinical and radiologic outcomes. We have retrospectively reviewed 64 osteonecrotic hips with a minimum of 15 years of follow-up38). The mean Harris hip score improved from 36 points to 92.7 points and survivorship of the stem for aseptic loosening was 100% at final follow-up. Le et al.39) also reported no aseptic loosening with a mean follow-up of 17 years. Osteolysis around the proximal stem was observed in 58% of cases; however, none were located below the sleeve-stem junction.

The biggest concern associated with S-ROM stems includes metallosis, fretting corrosions and failures at the modular interface. While Cook et al.4) reported that slippage and micromotion could occur at the stem-sleeve interface based on their biomechanical data, Bobyn et al.5) proved that the volume of wear particle was not significant enough to cause adverse effects, even under extreme conditions. There were also concerns of failure at the modular junction; however, many clinical studies have revealed reliable longevity of the implant. There are only a few case reports of implant fractures limited to 9-mm stems40 41 42 43).

MODULAR STEMS IN COMPLEX PRIMARY THAS

1. Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip

Anatomical abnormality make THA difficult in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Particularly in cases of Crowe type 3 or 4 deformity (or Hartofilakidis type C), femoral heads are highly dislocated with shallow true acetabulum11 44 45) (Fig. 4). Due to contraction of surrounding soft tissues, it is very difficult to pull down the hip center to its original position. Such situations frequently require massive soft tissue release or preoperative traction. Even with careful attention, excessive lengthening or traction of the limb can lead to sciatic nerve injury46).

In this case, subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy combined with the use of an S-ROM prosthesis is effective45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54) in both joint reduction and in the prevention of nerve palsy. Klisic and Jankovic55) introduced a method of making transverse osteotomy distal to the lesser trochanter in 1974. Combined with the use of an S-ROM stem, we can obtain firm fixation at the metaphyseal region and rotational stability at the distal osteotomy site without using additional fixation device like plates or cables. Moreover, increased anteversion can be treated with a free rotation between the sleeve and the stem.

Takao et al.50) reported results of THA with subtrochanteric osteotomy using S-ROM modular stems in 25 patients (33 hips) with Crowe type IV DDH. They found that the average leg length discrepancy was reduced from 5.1 cm preoperatively to 2.8 cm postoperatively. There were no cases of nonunion at the osteotomy site or sciatic nerve palsy. After a minimum follow up of 5 years, only one stem was revised for aseptic loosening. Biant et al.53) also performed THA using S-ROM modular stems in 28 Crowe type III or IV DDH. The Harris hip score improved from 37 points to 81 points at follow-up of more than 10 years. There were no cases requiring stem revision.

2. Sequelae of Septic Arthritis

Patients with septic hip sequelae often have more distorted bony structures than those with DDH. Patients with neglected septic arthritis usually have hypoplastic femurs with rudimentary heads, small canal diameters, dysplastic acetabulum, and high-riding hip centers10 56 57) (Fig. 5). Additionally, cases with previous arthrotomies, scars with old draining sinus, contracted peri-capsular structures, and weak abductors with severe atrophies (Fig. 6) are common. Therefore, a precise surgical technique with appropriate implant selection is extremely important.

S-ROM prostheses allow for proximal fixation by using a small sleeve where it is difficult to obtain initial fixation due to severe femoral deformity. In most cases, a narrow stem with small offset is used to reduce soft tissue tension, since preoperative offset is usually minor and the hip is highly dislocated. As with high-riding DDH, subtrochanteric osteotomy is often performed in the infection sequelae. To deal with accompanying severe rotational deformity, derotational osteotomy can be performed at the same time.

In our previous study10), among 58 patients with infection sequelae, 87.9% showed good to excellent clinical results with a mean follow-up of 8.3 years for THA using the S-ROM modular system. Only one patient underwent femoral revision due to recurrence of infection. No aseptic stem loosening was observed during the study period.

3. Skeletal Dysplasia

In cases of skeletal dysplasia, a large, flat femoral head with poor acetabular coverage, coxa vara, and shortened neck with decreased horizontal offset can make THA difficult (Fig. 7). Even under such conditions, favorable results can be obtained by using a small proximal sleeve and a modular stem with proper offset and diameter. In our group14), 23 patients with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia showed excellent clinical and radiographic results maintained for a mean of 4.8 years after THA with modular stems. No revisions of the femoral component were required during that period.

4. Previous Surgery

If joint-preserving surgeries (e.g., osteotomy and core decompression) are performed previously, severe deformities of the proximal femurs and soft tissue scarring are commonly observed (Fig. 8). In this situation, an intraoperative fracture may occur during the broaching procedure due to bony scars and blocks formed by previous operations. Therefore, modular implants applied with a reaming technique may be safer than tapered stems using a broaching system. In addition, precise intraoperative modifications and biomechanics approaching normal (i.e., pre-surgery levels) can be obtained by using modular prostheses.

We compared13) 36 patients who previously underwent joint preserving surgery for osteonecrosis of the femoral head with a matched control group of 39 osteonecrotic hips without previous surgeries. All THAs were performed using S-ROM prostheses and patient follow up was conducted for a mean of 4.6 years. Although the study group had more perioperative blood loss and longer operation times, there was no significant difference in mechanical failure rates between the two groups.

SUMMARY

Modular stems have a long history and have evolved into various forms. Implants with proximal sleeves have shown excellent mid- to long-term outcomes in a large number of cases. Although performing a surgical procedure with a modular prosthesis remains quite demanding and invasive, we recommend its use in complex primary THAs where the proximal femur is severely deformed.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Stems with modular necks. (A) M/L Kinective stem (Courtesy of Zimmer Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA). (B) Rejuvenate prosthesis (Courtesy of Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA).

Fig. 2

Prosthesis with mid-stem modularity. (A) Restoration modular stem (Courtesy of Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA). (B) Revitan revision stem (Courtesy of Zimmer Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA).

Fig. 3

Implants with modular proximal sleeves. (A) Modified Sivash stem. (B) S-ROM modular stem (Courtesy of DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA).

Fig. 4

(A) Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph of a 40-year-old woman with Crowe type IV developmental dysplasia of the hip. (B) Total hip arthroplasty with 2-cm shortening and 40° derotation osteotomy combined with a modular stem.

Fig. 5

A 41-year old female patient with septic hip sequelae. (A) High-riding hip center and femur with a narrow canal diameter on preoperative anteroposterior radiograph. (B) Severely deformed proximal femur missing its head viewed using three-dimensional computed tomography. (C) Total hip arthroplasty using modular stem with narrow diameter and small medial offset. Cerclage wiring was performed after extended trochanteric osteotomy and subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy.

Fig. 6

A patient with severe infection sequelae showing (A) multiple scars of draining sinus and (B) contracted peri-capsular structures and atrophic abductor muscles on axial view of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging.

Fig. 7

(A) Preoperative anteroposterior view of a 42-year old man with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia. Both femurs have large and flat femoral heads with decreased horizontal offsets. (B) Five years after simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty with S-ROM modular stems.

Fig. 8

(A, B) Preoperative radiographs of a 53-year old male patient who underwent Sugioka osteotomy for osteonecrosis of the femoral head 11 years before. (C) Previous implant removal was followed by bilateral total hip arthroplasty with modular stems.

Notes

^{CONFLICT OF INTEREST} The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

References

1. McTighe T, Keppler L, Tkach T. Cementless Modular Stems [Internet]. Chagrin Falls: Joint Implant Surgery and Research Foundation;2002. cited 2018 May 5. Available from: http://www.jisrf.org/pdfs/cementless-modular-stems.pdf.

2. Spitzer AI. The S-ROM cementless femoral stem: history and literature review. Orthopedics. 2005; 28:9 Suppl. s1117–s1124.

3. Krishnan H, Krishnan SP, Blunn G, Skinner JA, Hart AJ. Modular neck femoral stems. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B:1011–1021.

4. Cook SD, Manley MT, Kester MA, Dong NG. Torsional resistance and wear of a modular sleeve-stem hip system. Clin Mater. 1993; 12:153–158.

5. Bobyn JD, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ, Dujovne AR, Brooks CE. Concerns with modularity in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (298):27–36.

6. Krygier JJ, Dujovne AR, Bobyn JD. Fatigue behavior of titanium femoral hip prosthesis with proximal sleeve-stem modularity. J Appl Biomater. 1994; 5:195–201.

7. Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Fada RA, Adams JB. Stem modularity: rarely necessary in primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2002; 25:1385–1387.

8. Cameron HU. Modularity in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996; 11:332–334. discussion 337-8.

9. Cameron H. Experience with proximal ingrowth implantation in hip revision surgery. Acta Orthop Belg. 1997; 63:Suppl 1. 66–68.

10. Lim SJ, Park YS. Modular cementless total hip arthroplasty for hip infection sequelae. Orthopedics. 2005; 28:9 Suppl. s1063–s1068.

11. Mattingly DA. The S-ROM modular stem for femoral deformities. Orthopedics. 2005; 28:9 Suppl. s1059–s1062.

12. Cameron HU, Keppler L, McTighe T. The role of modularity in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21:4 Suppl 1. 89–92.

13. Lim SJ, Moon YW, Eun SS, Park YS. Total hip arthroplasty using the S-ROM modular stem after joint-preserving procedures for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23:495–501.

14. Lim SJ, Park YS, Moon YW, Jung SM, Ha HC, Seo JG. Modular cementless total hip arthroplasty for multiple epiphyseal dysplasia. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24:77–82.

15. De Martino I, Assini JB, Elpers ME, Wright TM, Westrich GH. Corrosion and fretting of a modular hip system: a retrieval analysis of 60 rejuvenate stems. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30:1470–1475.

16. Kwon YM. Evaluation of the painful dual taper modular neck stem total hip arthroplasty: Do they all require revision? J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31:1385–1389.

17. Kwon YM, Khormaee S, Liow MH, Tsai TY, Freiberg AA, Rubash HE. Asymptomatic pseudotumors in patients with taper corrosion of a dual-taper modular femoral stem: MARS-MRI and metal ion study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98:1735–1740.

18. Molloy DO, Munir S, Jack CM, Cross MB, Walter WL, Walter WK Sr. Fretting and corrosion in modular-neck total hip arthroplasty femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96:488–493.

19. Kwon YM, Fehring TK, Lombardi AV, Barnes CL, Cabanela ME, Jacobs JJ. Risk stratification algorithm for management of patients with dual modular taper total hip arthroplasty: consensus statement of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the Hip Society. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29:2060–2064.

20. 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; 95:865–872.

21. Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88:1183–1191.

22. Hasegawa M, Iino T, Sudo A. Immune response in adverse reactions to metal debris following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17:221.

23. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Yang JM, Ahn G, Choi YL. Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87:1515–1521.

24. Palumbo BT, Morrison KL, Baumgarten AS, Stein MI, Haidukewych GJ, Bernasek TL. Results of revision total hip arthroplasty with modular, titanium-tapered femoral stems in severe proximal metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone loss. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28:690–694.

25. Hoberg M, Konrads C, Engelien J, et al. Outcome of a modular tapered uncemented titanium femoral stem in revision hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015; 39:1709–1713.

26. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ. Revision total hip arthroplasty using a fluted and tapered modular distal fixation stem with and without extended trochanteric osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22:993–999.

27. Fink B, Urbansky K, Schuster P. Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B:889–895.

28. Sivash KM. The development of a total metal prosthesis for the hip joint from a partial joint replacement. Reconstr Surg Traumatol. 1969; 11:53–62.

29. Salvi AE GG, Hacking SA. The innovative Sivash artificial total hip joint. UPOJ. 2010; 20:151–153.

30. Apoil A, Labouret J, Moinet P, Vivier J. [Sivash total hip prosthesis. Description, operative technique, results (author's transl)]. Ann Chir. 1975; 29:1087–1092. French.

31. Sivash KM. Alloplasty of the hip joint. A laboratory and clinical study. Central Institutefor Traumatology and Orthopaedics. Moscow: Medical Press;1967.

32. Gorski JM. Modular noncemented total hip arthroplasty for congenital dislocation of the hip. Case report and design rationale. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; (228):110–116.

33. Cameron HU. A review of the 2- to 8-year results with a proximally fixed noncemented threaded modular total hip. Acta Orthop Belg. 1992; 58:420–424.

34. Cameron HU. The 3-6-year results of a modular noncemented low-bending stiffness hip implant. A preliminary study. J Arthroplasty. 1993; 8:239–243.

35. Cameron HU. The two- to six-year results with a proximally modular noncemented total hip replacement used in hip revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (298):47–53.

36. Buly R. The S-ROM stem: versatility of stem/sleeve combinations and head options. Orthopedics. 2005; 28:9 Suppl. s1025–s1032.

37. Christie MJ, DeBoer DK, Trick LW, et al. Primary total hip arthroplasty with use of the modular S-ROM prosthesis. Four to seven-year clinical and radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81:1707–1716.

38. Kim SM, Lim SJ, Moon YW, Kim YT, Ko KR, Park YS. Cementless modular total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than fifty with femoral head osteonecrosis: minimum fifteen-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28:504–509.

39. Le D, Smith K, Tanzer D, Tanzer M. Modular femoral sleeve and stem implant provides long-term total hip survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469:508–513.

40. Parisi T, Burroughs B, Kwon YM. Modular hip implant fracture at the stem-sleeve interface. Orthopedics. 2015; 38:e234–e239.

41. Waly F, Abduljabbar FH, Gascoyne T, Turgeon TR, Huk O. Stem-sleeve junction failure of a modular femoral hip system: a retrieval analysis. HSS J. 2015; 11:285–290.

42. Drexler M, Dwyer T, Marmor M, et al. Nineteen year results of THA using modular 9 mm S-ROM femoral component in patients with small femoral canals. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28:1667–1670.

43. Mehran N, North T, Laker M. Failure of a modular hip implant at the stem-sleeve interface. Orthopedics. 2013; 36:e978–e981.

44. Park MS, Kim KH, Jeong WC. Transverse subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy in primary total hip arthroplasty for patients with severe hip developmental dysplasia. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22:1031–1036.

45. Kang JS, Moon KH, Kim RS, Park SR, Lee JS, Shin SH. Total hip arthroplasty using S-ROM prosthesis for dysplastic hip. Yonsei Med J. 2011; 52:655–660.

46. Fleming P, Lenehan B, O'Rourke S, McHugh P, Kaar K, McCabe JP. Strain on the human sciatic nerve in vivo during movement of the hip and knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003; 85:363–365.

47. Onodera S, Majima T, Ito H, Matsuno T, Kishimoto T, Minami A. Cementless total hip arthroplasty using the modular S-ROM prosthesis combined with corrective proximal femoral osteotomy. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21:664–669.

48. Togrul E, Ozkan C, Kalaci A, Güls¸en M. A new technique of subtrochanteric shortening in total hip replacement for Crowe type 3 to 4 dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25:465–470.

49. Ogawa H, Ito Y, Shinozaki M, Matsumoto K, Shimizu K. Subtrochanteric transverse shortening osteotomy in cementless total hip arthroplasty achieved using a modular stem. Orthopedics. 2011; 34:170.

50. Takao M, Ohzono K, Nishii T, Miki H, Nakamura N, Sugano N. Cementless modular total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy for hips with developmental dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93:548–555.

51. Wang D, Li DH, Li Q, et al. Subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy during cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients with severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18:491.

52. Wang D, Li LL, Wang HY, Pei FX, Zhou ZK. Long-term results of cementless total hip arthroplasty with subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy in Crowe type IV developmental dysplasia. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32:1211–1219.

53. Biant LC, Bruce WJ, Assini JB, Walker PM, Walsh WR. Primary total hip arthroplasty in severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Ten-year results using a cementless modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24:27–32.

54. Tamegai H, Otani T, Fujii H, Kawaguchi Y, Hayama T, Marumo K. A modified S-ROM stem in primary total hip arthroplasty for developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28:1741–1745.

55. Klisic P, Jankovic L. Combined procedure of open reduction and shortening of the femur in treatment of congenital dislocation of the hips in older children. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; (119):60–69.

56. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Oh I, Lim JS. Prognostic factors influencing the functional outcome of total hip arthroplasty for hip infection sequelae. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20:608–613.

57. Park KS, Yoon TR, Song EK, Seon JK, Lee KB. Total hip arthroplasty in high dislocated and severely dysplastic septic hip sequelae. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27:1331–1336.e1.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs: Youn-Soo Park
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-9055
Similar articles