Prophylactic cable prevents tapered titanium stem subsidence with 2 cm of stem-cortical engagement in a cadaveric model

Aims: When performing revision total hip arthroplasty using diaphyseal-engaging titanium tapered stems (TTS), the recommended 3 to 4 cm of stem-cortical diaphyseal contact may not be available. In challenging cases such as these with only 2 cm of contact, can sufficient axial stability be achieved and what is the benefit of a prophylactic cable? This study sought to determine, first, whether a prophylactic cable allows for sufficient axial stability when the contact length is 2 cm, and second, if differing TTS taper angles (2° vs 3.5°) impact these results. Methods: A biomechanical matched-pair cadaveric study was designed using six matched pairs of human fresh cadaveric femora prepared so that 2 cm of diaphyseal bone engaged with 2° (right femora) or 3.5° (left femora) TTS. Before impaction, three matched pairs received a single 100 lb-tensioned prophylactic beaded cable; the remaining three matched pairs received no cable adjuncts. Specimens underwent stepwise axial loading to 2600 N or until failure, defined as stem subsidence > 5 mm. Results: All specimens without cable adjuncts (6/6 femora) failed during axial testing, while all specimens with a prophylactic cable (6/6) successfully resisted axial load, regardless of taper angle. In total, four of the failed specimens experienced proximal longitudinal fractures, three of which occurred with the higher 3.5° TTS. One fracture occurred in a 3.5° TTS with a prophylactic cable yet passed axial testing, subsiding < 5 mm. Among specimens with a prophylactic cable, the 3.5° TTS resulted in lower mean subsidence (0.5 mm (SD 0.8)) compared with the 2° TTS (2.4 mm (SD 1.8)). Conclusion: A single prophylactic beaded cable dramatically improved initial axial stability when stem-cortex contact length was 2 cm. All implants failed secondary to fracture or subsidence > 5 mm when a prophylactic cable was not used. A higher taper angle appears to decrease the magnitude of subsidence but increased the fracture risk. The fracture risk was mitigated by the use of a prophylactic cable. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):472–477.