Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with revision total hip arthroplasty

The History of Classification Systems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Literature Review

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) present a significant clinical challenge due to their increasing incidence with an aging population and evolving surgical practices. Historically, classifications were primarily based on anatomical fracture location, the stability of the implant, and bone quality surrounding the implant. We critically analyzed 25 classification systems, highlighting the emergence and adaptations of key systems such as the Vancouver classification system (VCS) and the Unified classification system (UCS), which are lauded for their simplicity and effectiveness yet require further refinement. VCS, developed in 1995, categorizes fractures based on the site, implant stability, and bone quality, and remains widely used due to its robust applicability across different clinical settings. Introduced in 2014, UCS expands the VCS to encompass all periprosthetic fractures with additional fracture types, aiming for a universal application. Despite their widespread adoption, these systems exhibit shortcomings, including the incomplete inclusion of all PPFF types and the imprecise assessment of implant stability and surrounding bone loss. These gaps can result in misclassification and suboptimal treatment outcomes. This paper suggests the necessity for ongoing improvements in classification systems to include emerging fracture types and refined diagnostic criteria, ensuring that they remain relevant to contemporary orthopedic practices and continue to facilitate the precise tailoring of treatment to patient-specific circumstances. This comprehensive historical review serves as a foundation for future innovations in classification systems, ultimately aiming to standardize PPFF treatment and improve patient prognosis.

Cementless, modular, titanium stem in Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures

INTRODUCTION

The periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a serious complication after primary total hip arthroplasty. We conducted a retrospective study to determine whether the PRIUS^® system presented similar survival to other existing implants for the treatment of Vancouver B2 or B3 PFFs. Bone consolidation rate, functional results and complications were analysed.

METHOD

This is a bi-centric retrospective study between 2012 and 2017 including 39 patients with (B2/B3) PFFs treated by senior surgeons using a PRIUS^® femoral implant. Implant survival, radiological outcome (fracture healing) and clinical scores (Oxford-OHS, Harris Hip Score-HHS, Postel Merle d'Aubigné-PMA, Devane and Charnley) were analysed. 10 patients had died before data collection and 5 patients were lost to follow-up. A total of 21 patients were able to undergo a clinical and radiological evaluation. The mean follow-up period was 3 years.

RESULTS

The 3-year PRIUS^® stem survival rate was 88.6% [95% CI, 77.2-100]. The consolidation rate was 81% (17/21). The rate of satisfied or very satisfied patients was 85.6% (18/21). Regarding the Devane score, activity level was maintained in 70.6% of cases (12/17) and decreased in 29.4% of cases (5/17), the Charnley score was stable in 94% of cases (16/17) and decreased in 6% of cases (1/17). The mean Oxford score was 28.8/48 (9.3; 16-48), the mean HHS was 67/100 (16.4; 46-91) and the mean PMA score was 12.6/18 (4.5; 2-18).

CONCLUSION

The results in terms of survival rate and bone consolidation are comparable to other literature series. The PRIUS® System can be added to the surgical arsenal in the treatment of (B2/B3) PFF, subject to confirmation of these results in the longer term.

Mortality After Postoperative Periprosthetic Fracture of the Femur After Hip Arthroplasty in the Last Decade: Meta-Analysis of 35 Cohort Studies Including 4841 Patients

BACKGROUND

Postoperative periprosthetic fracture of the femur (POPFF) is associated with increased mortality. There is a lack of general estimates of mortality after POPFF and a need for higher-level evidence in this area. The aim of this study was to estimate mortality after POPFF using data reported in cohort studies from the last decade.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted using Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during time as an inpatient, within 30 days, within 90 days, and within one year of POPFF. Mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]) was estimated using metaregression.

RESULTS

A total of 4841 patients from 35 cohort studies were included. Study quality was generally low. The weighted mean follow-up was 2.3 years, and the most common POPFF was Vancouver B. The pooled mortality as an inpatient was 2.4% (95% CI 1.6% to 3.4%). The pooled mortality within 30 days was 3.3% (95% CI 2.0% to 5.0%). The pooled mortality within 90 days was 4.8% (95% CI 3.6% to 6.1%). The pooled mortality within one year was 13.4% (95% CI 11.9% to 14.8%). Mortality after POPFF was like that of neck of femur fracture up to 30 days, but better at one year.

CONCLUSION

Mortality is like that experienced by patients after neck of femur fracture up to 30 days, but better at one year, which may represent the lower underlying risk of death in the POPFF cohort. These results may form the basis for evaluation of services treating POPFF in the future.

Open reduction and internal fixation might be a valuable alternative to stem revision in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, irrespective of the stem's design

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures versus stem revision (SR) surgery.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2018, 39 patients were treated with SR and 31 with ORIF for a Vancouver type B2. Mean follow-up was 40.4 months for the ORIF group and 43.5 months for the SR group. 22 of 31 stems in the ORIF group were uncemented, of which 7 (23%) were short stems. Perioperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, revision rate, and mortality were recorded. Functional outcomes included Harris Hip Score, Parker Mobility Score and hip abductor strength.

RESULTS

Both groups did not differ in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, age, and sex. Compared to SR, patients treated with ORIF had a decreased blood loss, transfusion rate, operation duration, and mortality. Total complication and re-operation rates were similar. The relative risk for complication and re-operation was 0.5 and 0.7, respectively, in favour of ORIF.

CONCLUSIONS

ORIF might be a valuable alternative to SR in the treatment of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fractures with shorter operation duration, lower blood loss and similar complication rate compared to SR. Moreover, re-stabilization seems possible irrespective of stem's design or fixation technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Femoral revision in periprosthetic fractures using a titanium modular fluted tapered stem: mortality and clinical and radiological outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to evaluate the mortality and the outcomes of femoral revision in periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) using a titanium modular fluted tapered stem.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed femoral revisions performed for PFF with a titanium modular fluted tapered stem in 25 patients. The average age was 74.32 years. In 21 patients the type of fracture was Vancouver B2 and type B3 in 4 cases. The mean follow-up was 29.16 (0.83-104.1) months SD ± 29.49.

RESULTS

The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 8% and 12% respectively. The mean value of the Charlson Comorbidity Index was 4.8 and the mean value of ASA score was 2.4. The average time to surgery from admittance was 5.45 days with 20% of patients operated on within 48 hours. A significant correlation was found between ASA score and mortality. The mean HHS was 76 points; good-excellent results were recorded in 56% of patients. 72% had no pain and 28% had slight pain (VAS 1-3). 52% of patients were able to walk without pain, limp or aids. The mean implant subsidence was 1.57 mm and superior to 5 mm in 2 cases. As complications we recorded 4 implant dislocations (16%) and 2 infections. Reoperation rate was 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem in patients with periprosthetic fractures results in good clinical and radiological outcomes. However, mortality remains high and, despite the modularity design, dislocation is the most frequent complication.

Cementless, Fluted, Long-Stem Hemiarthroplasty for Vancouver B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Fractures Around Hip Hemiarthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a cementless, modular, fluted, long-stem hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fracture around hip hemiarthroplasty.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study comparing 46 patients revised to hemiarthroplasty (HA group) and 31 revised to total hip arthroplasty (THA group). Functional outcome was evaluated by the Merle d'Aubigné score, and the Katz scale based on activities of daily living. Comorbidity was assessed by the Charlson index, and cognitive function by a mini-mental test score. Radiological evaluation was also performed.

RESULTS

Mean postoperative follow-up was 3.3 (range, 2-4) years in the HA group and 3.9 (range, 2-5) in the THA group. The need for transfusion and hospital stay were significantly higher in the THA group. Postoperatively, both groups had a significant decrease in mean hip function (P = .001) although the mean Merle (P = .121) and Katz (P = .214) scores were similar at final follow-up. Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in pain or loss of life independence. All fractures were united but one in the HA group. There were no dislocations in the HA group, and 3 in the THA group.

CONCLUSION

The management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fracture around hemiarthroplasties with a long-stem revision cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty, supplemented with wire cerclages and cancellous allograft, was an effective option in terms of fracture healing and stability of the implant with a low rate of complications. Nevertheless, a significant functional impairment was also observed in either group.

A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions

INTRODUCTION

In the last three decades, total hip replacement in young patient became a habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants).

METHODS

During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, etiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique.

RESULTS

We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two case of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one-time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.

A new classification for proximal femur bone defects in conservative hip arthroplasty revisions

INTRODUCTION

In last three decades, total hip replacement in young patients became an habitual procedure. Principles of bone preservation are pushing many surgeons to implant conservative femoral components in patient younger than 65 years. Despite an overall good survivorship and clinical outcomes of conservative implants, failed cases are reported and the need to revise a conservative femoral component became an occasional procedure (with high prevalence of failed resurfacing implants).

METHODS

During conservative femoral component revisions, we analyzed proximal bone stock preservation, considering the type of original component removed, aetiology of failure, timing of revision, and femoral explantation technique.

RESULTS

We identified four patterns of proximal femoral changes (types I-IV). We suggest, for each of them, a revision strategy directed toward a "conservative revision procedure" using conservative or primary component. Out of our 21 cases, none underwent further revision due to mechanical failure (follow-up ranging from 6 to 152 months, mean 54 months). We had two cases of re-operation: one for early septic loosening and one for prosthetic modular neck fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

If literature offers well-established guidelines to femoral revision of conventional stems, there is, on the other hand, a lack of data about revision strategies in presence of failed conservative implants. Although the mean follow-up of our procedures is still too short (4.5 years) to give final conclusions, we would leave a message: a conservative hip arthroplasty is not a "one time" opportunity for young and active people. A "conservative revision" is a valid option for at least a part of them, when an early failure of primary procedure occurred.

Higher prevalence of periprosthetic fractures with ceramic on polyethylene hip bearing compared with ceramic on ceramic on the contralateral side: a forty year experience with hip osteonecrosis

PURPOSE

It is unclear whether late THA periprosthetic femoral fractures are related to a mechanical mechanism that decreases strength of the femur (for example, loosening) or to a biological problem as osteolysis. It is also unknown if ceramic on ceramic bearing couples decrease the risk of late periprosthetic fractures as a result of the absence of wear and osteolysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We therefore asked whether the cumulative long-term fractures were different according to the couple of friction ceramic on ceramic or ceramic on polyethylene in 327 patients (654 hips) with bilateral THA (one ceramic-ceramic, and the contralateral ceramic-polyethylene) who had THA with cemented stems performed between from 1978 to 2000 for osteonecrosis.

RESULTS

There were two intra-operative fractures (0.3%). The median follow-up was 22 years (range, 15-40 years), and at the most recent follow-up, the cumulative number of late (after 7 years of follow-up) post-operative fractures was 32 (5% of 654 hips). Fractures were unilateral, which means for the 327 patients, a 10% rate of fractures. Periprosthetic fractures increased in number with follow-up: seven fractures (1% of 654 hips) occurred within ten years of THA implantation, 20 (3%) within 20 years, 26 (4%) within 30 years, and 32 (5%) within 40 years. The risk of fracture was influenced (p < 0.001) by the bearing surfaces at the time of prosthetic implantation, low (0.3%) for ceramic on ceramic (1/32 fractures; 1/327 hips), high (10%) for ceramic on PE (31/32 fractures; 31/327 hips).

CONCLUSION

In summary, when the contralateral hip of the same patient is the control, after 40 years of follow-up, post-operative fractures occur 30 times more often on the side with PE cup than on the side with ceramic/ceramic bearing.

Periprosthetic hip fractures: A review of the economic burden based on length of stay

Introduction

With the increasing rates of total hip replacements being performed worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of periprosthetic fractures. As our patients' demographics change to include older patients with multiple medical co-morbidities, there is a concurrent increase in morbidity and mortality rates. This leads to longer hospital stays and increasing hospital costs. In the current economic climate, the cost of treating periprosthetic fractures must be addressed and appropriate resource and funding allocation for future provision of services should be planned.

Materials and methods

All periprosthetic hip fractures that were admitted to a single trauma unit over a three-year period were reviewed. Independent chart review, haematological and radiological review was undertaken. All patients with a periprosthetic fracture associated with a total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were included. Follow up data including complications were collated. Data from the hospital inpatient database and finance department was utilized for cost analysis. All statistical analysis was preformed using Minitab version 17.

Results

48 patients were identified who met the inclusion criteria for review. The majority of participants were female with a mean age of 73.5 years. The mean time to fracture was 4.5 years (9 months-18.5 years). Periprosthetic fracture was associated with total hip arthroplasty in 24 cases and a Vancouver B2 classification was most common at n = 20. The majority of patients had revision arthroplasty, with a mean length of stay of 24 days for the whole cohort (9-42). Vancouver B3 fractures had the longest inpatient stay at a mean of 26 days. The mean cost of for a full revision of stem with additional plate and cable fixation was over €27000 compared to €14,600 for ORIF and cable fixation based on length of hospital stay.

Conclusion

The prolonged length of stay associated with Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures leads to increased costs to the healthcare service. Accurately calculating the costs of total treatment for periprosthetic fractures is difficult due to a lack of transparency around implant and staffing costs. However, as we can expect increasing incidence of periprosthetic fractures presenting in the coming years it is paramount that we make financial provisions within healthcare budgets to ensure we can treat these patients appropriately.

Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Proximal Femoral Fractures by Distal Locking Femoral Stem (Cannulok) in Patients 75 Years and Older

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic fracture following total hip arthroplasty is a significant problem faced by hip surgeons, and its management in elderly patients remains a considerable challenge.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 28 Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) treated with revision of the femoral stems by distally locked, hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented stems (Cannulok). Patients were aged 75 years or older at the time of surgery.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 44.6 months (range, 24-102). The mean postoperative Oxford hip score was 30.1 (range, 10-46). The rate of fracture union was 95.8%, and the survivorship of the stem was 100% at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The management of PFF in elderly is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. The use of a distally locked, hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem is a valid option for the treatment of PFF to achieve fracture union with a low rate of revision.