PURPOSE: Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an increasingly common procedure due to the growing number of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed worldwide. This study evaluates the long-term implant survival, functional outcomes, and radiographic performance of cemented femoral stem (Beznoska s.r.o., Kladno, Czechia) in rTHA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 183 patients who underwent rTHA with cemented stem between March 2012 and December 2023. The mean follow-up duration was 71.26(± 39.31) months. Implant survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and failure modes were assessed. Radiographic changes were classified using the Gruen Zones system. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Cox proportional hazard models were applied to identify prognostic factors influencing implant survival. RESULTS: The five-year implant survival rate was 98.1%, declining to 83.9% at twelve years. The overall failure rate was 3.83%, with periprosthetic infection (4 cases) being the most common cause, followed by aseptic loosening (2 cases). Radiographic changes were observed in 24.03% of cases, predominantly in Gruen Zones 2, 6, and 1. Functional outcomes were favorable, with a mean HHS of 81.28(± 5.74), comparable to outcomes reported for uncemented revision stems. Age, stem diameter, and stem length did not significantly impact implant survival. CONCLUSION: The cemented stem demonstrated favourable long-term survival, with high implant retention rates. Functional outcomes indicated overall satisfactory performance. Radiographic evaluation revealed localized changes around the implant, predominantly in Gruen Zones 2, 6, and 1. Implant failure was relatively rare, with periprosthetic infection being the most common cause.

1st Department of Orthopaedic Surgery St Anne´s University Hospital Brno Czech Republic

Faculty of medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Int Orthop. 2025 Aug;49(8):2007-2008. doi: 10.1007/s00264-025-06565-6. PubMed

See more in PubMed

Negm AM, Beaupre LA, Goplen CM et al (2022) A scoping review of total hip arthroplasty survival and reoperation rates in patients of 55 years or younger: health services implications for revision surgeries. Arthroplasty Today 16:247–258e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2022.05.012 PubMed DOI PMC

Clar C, Leitner L, Koutp A et al (2024) The worldwide survival rate of total hip arthroplasties is improving: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. EFORT Open Reviews 9:745–750. https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-23-0080 PubMed DOI PMC

Viswanathan VK, Patralekh MK, Kalanjiyam GP et al (2024) Total hip arthroplasty in active and advanced tubercular arthritis: a systematic review of the current evidence. Int Orthop 48:79–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05943-2 PubMed DOI

Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A et al (2018) Hip replacement. Lancet 392:1662–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X PubMed DOI

Kristóf J, Gupta D, Szabó L et al (2024) Outcomes of Exeter cemented total hip arthroplasty in a County hospital: survivorship of eight hundred and Ninety four hips with a minimum ten-year follow up. Int Orthop 48:729–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-06026-y PubMed DOI

Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D et al (2008) Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop (SICO 32:597–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3 DOI

Bains SS, Dubin JA, Salib CG et al (2024) The epidemiology of the revision total hip arthroplasty in the united States from 2016 to 2022. Arthroplasty Today 30:101517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2024.101517 PubMed DOI PMC

Pflüger MJ, Frömel DE, Meurer A (2021) Total hip arthroplasty revision surgery: impact of morbidity on perioperative outcomes. J Arthroplast 36:676–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.08.005 DOI

Elbardesy H, Anazor F, Mirza M et al (2023) Cemented versus uncemented stems for revision total hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Orthop 14:630–640. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i8.630 PubMed DOI PMC

Tyson Y, Hillman C, Majenburg N et al (2021) Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size. Acta Orthop 92:143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1846956 PubMed DOI

Sahemey R, Ridha A, Stephens A et al (2024) Does size matter? Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty with long or primary stems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthroplasty 6:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-023-00228-w PubMed DOI PMC

Jayasinghe G, Kumar R, Buckle C et al (2024) Patient mortality after total hip arthroplasty revision surgery. J Orthop 47:45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2023.11.020 PubMed DOI

Herold D, Kuttner A, Dreyer L, Eingartner C (2024) Mid-term results of a cementless hip stem in femoral revision: how much diaphyseal press-fit do we need? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 144:1813–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-05191-4 PubMed DOI PMC

Duman S, Çamurcu İ, Uçpunar H et al (2021) Comparison of clinical characteristics and 10-year survival rates of revision hip arthroplasties among revision time groups. Arch Med Sci 17:382–389. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2019.88563 PubMed DOI

Picado CHF, Savarese A, Cardamoni VDS et al (2020) Clinical, radiographic, and survivorship analysis of a modular fluted tapered stem in revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 28:2309499019891638. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019891638 PubMed DOI

De Meo D, Martini P, Perciballi B et al (2024) Clinical outcomes and survival rates of a uncemented modular revision stem system in hip arthroplasty: a 10-year single-institution study on a frail population. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 144:3833–3840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05483-3 PubMed DOI PMC

Hernigou P, Homma Y, Bastard C et al (2025) Subtrochanteric shortening osteotomy in adult sickle cell disease patients with cemented total hip arthroplasty for hip deformities secondary to childhood osteonecrosis: is healing a challenge? Int Orthop 49:407–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06394-z PubMed DOI

Hasegawa M, Tone S, Naito Y, Sudo A (2023) Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight polyethylene in hip and knee arthroplasties. Materials 16:2140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16062140 PubMed DOI PMC

Yagura T, Oe K, Kobayasi F et al (2024) Experimental periprosthetic fractures with collarless polished tapered cemented stems. Int Orthop (SICOT) 48:1171–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06136-1 DOI

Kenney C, Dick S, Lea J et al (2019) A systematic review of the causes of failure of revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop 16:393–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2019.04.011 PubMed DOI PMC

Pallaver A, Zwicky L, Bolliger L et al (2018) Long-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:1609–1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3023-9 PubMed DOI PMC

Herry Y, Viste A, Bothorel H et al (2019) Long-term survivorship of a monoblock long cementless stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop (SICOT) 43:2279–2284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4186-2 DOI

Chatelet J-C, Ait-Si-Selmi T, Machenaud A et al (2021) Mid-Term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a long cementless monobloc stem for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 36:261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.057 DOI

Kiran M, Johnston LR, Sripada S et al (2018) Cemented total hip replacement in patients under 55 years: good results in 104 hips followed up for ≥ 22 years. Acta Orthop 89:152–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1427320 PubMed DOI PMC

Malahias M-A, Mancino F, Agarwal A et al (2021) Cement-in-cement technique of the femoral component in aseptic total hip arthroplasty revision: A systematic review of the contemporary literature. J Orthop 26:14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2021.06.002 PubMed DOI PMC

Liu T, Hua X, Yu W et al (2019) Long-term follow-up outcomes for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with uncemented versus cemented femoral components: a retrospective observational study with a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res 14:371. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1415-3 PubMed DOI PMC

Zeng M, Xie J, Li M et al (2015) Cementless femoral revision in patients with a previous cemented prosthesis. Int Orthop (SICOT) 39:1513–1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2696-8 DOI