[Orthopedic Reviews 2014; 6:5247] [page 43]

With an increasing number of primary hip replacements being performed every year, the burden of revision hip arthroplasty, for septic and aseptic loosening, recurrent dislocation or periprosthetic fracture, is also increasing. In recent years, different approaches to revising the femoral prosthesis have emerged; includ-ing both cemented and cementless techniques. With a stable cement mantle and good bone quality, or through the use of impaction bone grafting when bone stock is lacking, it is possi-ble to re-cement a femoral prosthesis. Alternatively, a cementless modular femoral prosthesis may be used, providing the surgeon with further options for restoring leg length, hip offset, anteversion and stability. Studies evaluating the use of modular cementless prostheses have so far been limited to mid-term studies, with results comparable to pri-mary hip arthroplasty. There are some con-cerns, however, regarding tribological compli-cations such as stem fracture, corrosion, and failure, and long-term studies are required to further evaluate these concerns. This review outlines the current evidence for the use of both cemented and cementless modular femoral prostheses in the setting of revision hip arthroplasty. Results of prospective and ret-rospective studies will be outlined, along with results obtained from national joint registries