PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 26, 2026Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery0 citationsOpen Access

Does femoral stem choice associate with survivorship and clinical outcomes after conversion total hip arthroplasty? A retrospective analysis and novel treatment algorithm

TBTroy D. BornesHospital for Special SurgeryDDDaniel Alexander DriscollCAChristopher G. Anderson

Key Points

  • This research aims to understand how fracture fixation type influences the choice of femoral stem in conversion total hip arthroplasty and to evaluate outcomes associated with different stem types.
  • Retrospective review of 51 patients who underwent conversion total hip arthroplasty from 2016 to 2020.
  • Analysis of previous fracture fixation methods including cephalomedullary nail and sliding hip screw.
  • Evaluation of various stem types used and their association with clinical outcomes and survivorship.
  • Assessment of radiographic measurements to develop an algorithm for femoral stem selection.
  • Diaphyseal-engaging uncemented stems were primarily used after cephalomedullary nail fixation.
  • Metaphyseal-engaging uncemented stems were more common after sliding hip screw fixation.
  • 100% survivorship free from stem-related failure and 89% free from all-cause reoperation.
  • Patients with cemented stems were typically older with higher transfusion needs, but no significant differences were found in complications or outcomes among stem types.

Abstract

Abstract Background Conversion total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) after prior proximal femoral fracture fixation can be performed using different femoral stems. This study aimed to (1) determine if initial fracture fixation or pattern associated with stem design in cTHA, (2) evaluate whether stem type was associated with survivorship and outcomes, and (3) propose a radiographic measurement to guide femoral stem selection. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who underwent cTHA from 2016 to 2020, including 44 patients with previous cephalomedullary nail (CMN; 86.3%) and 9 patients with previous sliding hip screw (SHS; 13.7%). Stems included 32 uncemented diaphyseal-engaging (62.7%), 10 uncemented metaphyseal-engaging (19.6%), and 9 cemented (17.6%). Outcomes assessed were fracture pattern, fixation construct, stem type, survivorship, post-operative complications, and patient-reported outcome measures. Preoperative radiographs were evaluated for diaphyseal width (D), distance from greater trochanter to most distal pre-isthmic screw (GS), and ratio of GS/D (GSD). These measures were used to construct an algorithm for stem selection at the time of cTHA. Mean follow-up was 69 months. Survivorship free from stem-related and all-cause failure was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results Diaphyseal-engaging uncemented stems were used more often after CMN fixation, while metaphyseal-engaging uncemented stems predominated after SHS fixation. Diaphyseal-engaging stems predominated in previous intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric, or complex fractures, while metaphyseal-engaging uncemented stems were more common in femoral neck fractures. Survivorship free from stem-related failure was 100% and from all-cause reoperation was 89%. Patients who received cemented stems were older, more likely to require transfusion or prolonged use of an assistive walking device. No significant differences were observed in complications, clinical outcomes or PROMs between stem groups. Higher GSD ratios correlated with diaphyseal-engaging stem use in SHS and long-CMN cases. Conclusion Femoral stem fixation type in cTHA correlated with prior fracture pattern and fixation construct. Survivorship free from stem-related failure requiring stem revision was 100% and survivorship free from all-cause failure was 89%. We propose a novel algorithm that may assist surgeons in selecting femoral stem at the time of cTHA using different patient-specific and radiographic factors.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bornes et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699fe37b95ddcd3a253e7648https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-025-06181-4
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper