Dual-Modular Versus Single-Modular Stems for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Long-Term Survival Analysis

Abstract

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Increased revision rate of dual-modular (DM) femoral stems in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of modular-neck breakage and adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) to additional junction damage products is well established and some designs have been recalled from the market. However, some long-term studies of specific DM stems did not confirm the inferiority of these stems compared to standard single-modular (SM) stems, and a head-to-head comparison THA is missing. The objectives of this multicentre study were to determine the survivorship and complication rates of a common DM stem design compared to a similar SM stem. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: In a time frame from January 2012 to November 2015, a cohort of 807 patients (882 hips) consecutively underwent primary cementless THAs at two orthopaedic centres. 377 hips were treated with a Zweimüller-type DM stem THA system and 505 hips with a similar SM stem THA system, both including a modern press-fit acetabulum. Kaplan-Meier survivorship and complication rates were compared between both groups in a median follow-up of 9.0 years (maximum, 9.9 years). <i>Results</i>: The 9-year survivorship of the DM stem THA system (92.6%, 95% CI 89.9-95.3) was significantly lower than that of the SM stem THA system (97.0%, 95% CI 95.2-98.8). There were no differences in revision rates for septic loosening, dislocation, and periprosthetic fractures between the two groups. One ceramic inlay and one Ti-alloy modular neck breakage occurred in the DM stem THA system group, but the main reason for revision in this group was aseptic loosening of components. <i>Conclusions</i>: The survivorship of the DM stem THA system was lower than the similar SM stem THA system in a comparable clinical environment with long-term follow-up. Our results confirmed that no rationale for stem modularity exists in primary THAs.