Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review

Treatment strategy and clinical outcomes of surgically managed hip periprosthetic fractures: analysis from a high-volume centre

BACKGROUND

Hip periprosthetic fractures (PPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are becoming increasingly prevalent. Their management is secondary to the fracture type and the stability of the implant. This study aimed to provide the outcomes of operatively managed PPF from a high-volume centre to help guide future decision making.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from January 2008 to January 2021. Patient demographics, implant specific details, and fixation strategy were collected. Complications including infection, reoperation, re-fracture, re-revision, were collected. Short-term mortality was evaluated at 3 months and 1 year. P-values <0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

282 surgically managed PPF were identified. Vancouver B2 were predominant in 52% of the cases. Revision alone and revision with additional fixation were the most frequent strategies in 168 cases (60%). Complications requiring reoperation occurred in 20% of the cases, with infection as the most frequent (8.5%). Mortality rate was 7.8% at 3 months and 15.7% at 1 year, with significantly lower rates in B2 type. B2 fractures treated with cemented stems had a significantly lower 1-year mortality than distal fit revisions.

CONCLUSIONS

PPF is associated with a high complication rate. Revision alone and revision with additional fixation remain the preferred method in B2/B3 type fractures, however, cemented revision can yield similar outcomes with lower short-term mortality. Considering the high-risk elderly and frail category of patients, a multidisciplinary team is necessary to improve outcomes and reduce mortality.

Health status after periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures

Aims

Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are a major complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Health status after PFF is not specifically investigated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the health status pattern over two years after sustaining a PFF.

Methods

A cohort of patients with PFF after THA was derived from the Brabant Injury Outcomes Surveillance (BIOS) study. The BIOS study, a prospective, observational, multicentre follow-up cohort study, was conducted to obtain data by questionnaires pre-injury and at one week, and one, three, six, 12, and 24 months after trauma. Primary outcome measures were the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), the Health Utility Index 2 (HUI2), and the Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3). Secondary outcome measures were general measurements such as duration of hospital stay and mortality.

Results

A total of 70 patients with a PFF were included. EQ-5D utility scores were significantly lower on all timepoints except at six months' follow-up compared to pre-injury. EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) scores at one month's follow-up were significantly lower compared to pre-injury. The percentage of reported problems at two years was higher for all dimensions except anxiety/depression when compared to pre-injury. The mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.26 higher in males compared to females (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.42; p = 0.003). The mean EQ-VAS score for males was 8.9 points higher when compared to females over all timepoints (95% CI 1.2 to 16.7; p = 0.027). Mortality was 10% after two years' follow-up.

Conclusion

PFF patients are a frail population with substantial functional impairment at baseline. Post-injury, they have a significant and clinically relevant lower health status two years after trauma when compared to pre-injury. Health status improves the most between one and three months after injury. Two years after PFF, more patients experience problems in mobility, self-care, usual activities, and pain/discomfort than pre-injury.

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures treatment: fix or replace? A retrospective study comparing both techniques

INTRODUCTION

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures involve stem stability and they have been classically treated with revision surgery. Crucial factors such as age, clinical comorbidities and functional status are often neglected. The current study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or femoral stem exchange.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study that includes all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures in a tertiary referral hospital from 2016 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1. Patients treated with an ORIF and Group 2. Patients treated with stem replacement. The outcomes that were compared between groups included demographic data, functional capacity, complications and mortality.

RESULTS

29 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures were finally analyzed. 11 (37.9%) were treated with ORIF (Group 1) and 18 (62.1%) by stem replacement (Group 2). Surgery time (143 vs. 160 min), hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.5 g/dL) and hospital stance (25.5 vs. 29.6 days) were shorter in Group 1. According to complications, 18.2% of patients in the ORIF group had orthopedic complications compared with 44.4% in the revision group. In the revision group, 3 cases needed a two-stage revision and one of these revisions ended up with a resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone). The first-year mortality rate was 27% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2.

DISCUSSION

ORIF treatment seems to be a less aggressive and complex procedure which can lead to a faster general recovery. Revision surgery can imply a higher risk of orthopedic complications which can be severe and may require further aggressive solutions. The ORIF group mortality was similar to the proximal femur fracture rate (20-30%). In conclusion, ORIF treatment seems to be a good option especially in fragile patients with low functional demand when anatomical reduction is possible.

Long stem revision versus short stem revision with plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture: a comparative study of eighty five cases

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) around the hip are challenging complications in orthopaedic surgery, particularly Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. The surgical management of these fractures is crucial and depends on various factors. Cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis is an alternative surgical technique. This study aims to compare the outcomes of this surgical technique with revision arthroplasty (RA) with long stem in the treatment of VTB2 PPFs.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in a single medical institute from February 2010 to May 2019. Patients who had received either total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty and subsequently developed a VTB2 PPF were included; patients who sustained intra-operative fractures or received a cemented stem previously were excluded from the analysis. The patients were divided into two groups: group I received RA with cementless long stem, while group II underwent RA with cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis. Demographic data, radiographic and functional outcomes, and complications were analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients diagnosed with VTB2 PPFs were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic data, including age, gender, mean follow-up times, estimated blood loss, and operative times. The radiographic results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence and implant stability between the two groups. However, group II tended to have less subsidence and periprosthetic osteolysis. Patients in group II had significantly better functional scores (mean Harris hip score: post-operative: 60.2 in group I and 66.7 in group ii; last follow-up: 77.4 in group 1 and 83.2 in group II (both p < 0.05)). There were no significant differences in the overall complication rate, including infection, dislocation, re-fracture, and revision surgery, between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both surgical techniques, cementless long stem and cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis, are effective in the treatment of Vancouver B2 PPFs, with no significant differences in outcomes or complications. However, patients in cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis had better functional scores at both post-operative and the last follow-up.

Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is still a matter of debate. Revision Arthroplasty (RA) was long thought to be the treatment of choice, however several recent papers suggested that Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) is a viable option for selected B2 fractures. Complication rates of 14-26% have been reported following surgical treatment of B2 fractures. No significant difference between RA and ORIF in the complication rates nor in the functional outcome was observed.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 97 consecutive Vancouver B2 fractures treated according to the algorithm at our institution from 2007 to 2020 and recorded complications and patient specific data.

RESULT

From the 97 patient, 45 fractures were treated with RA while 52 fractures were treated with ORIF. Thirteen patients in the RA group had a complication that needed revision (28%) and 11 patients in the ORIF group needed revision (21%). There was no significant difference between complication rates. The reason for failure in the 13 RA patients were infection (n = 4), stem subsidence (n = 1), refracture after a new fall (n = 3), secondary dislocation of the greater trochanter (n = 1) and dislocation (n = 4). The reason for failure in the 11 ORIF patients that were revised were infection (n = 5), persistent symptomatic stem loosening (n = 3) and refracture (n = 3) after a new fall.

CONCLUSION

ORIF can be used to revise cemented and non-cemented shafts in more than half of Vancouver B2 fractures with no difference in complication rates when compared to RA. A periprosthetic fracture around the hip has a 21-28% risk of a re-operation after revision surgery with infection and re-fracture after a new fall being the most frequent cause of re-operation.

Perioperative periprosthetic femur fracture associated with direct anterior total hip arthroplasty using metaphyseal fit and fill stem

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to identify radiographic and clinical risk factors of perioperative periprosthetic femur fracture associated with the direct anterior approach (DAA) using a metaphyseal fit and fill stem. We hypothesize stem malalignment with this femoral implant places increased stress on the medial calcar region, which leads to an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture.

METHODS

We compared patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following DAA total hip arthroplasty (THA) utilizing the Echo Bi-Metric Microplasty Stem (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) to a cohort of patients who did not sustain a periprosthetic fracture from five orthopedic surgeons over four years. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for stem alignment, neck cut level, Dorr classification, and the presence of radiographic pannus. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. Demographic and categorical variables were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen hips sustained femur fractures, including nine Vancouver B2 and five AG fractures. Valgus stem malalignment, proud stems, extended offset, and patients with enlarged radiographic pannus reached statistical significance for increased fracture risk. Low femoral neck cut showed a trend toward statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing DAA THA using a metaphyseal fit and fill stem may be at increased risk of perioperative periprosthetic fracture when the femoral stem sits proudly in valgus malalignment with extended offset and when an enlarged pannus is seen radiographically. This study identifies a specific pattern in the Vancouver B2 fracture cohort with regard to injury mechanism, time of injury, and fracture pattern, which may be attributed to coronal malalignment of the implant.

Exploring Individualized Approaches to Managing Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Insights from a Comprehensive Case Series Analysis

The increasing prevalence of periprosthetic femoral fractures, specifically in the vicinity of the hip, has emerged as a significant issue in recent times. Consequently, there is a need for a thorough examination to enhance the effectiveness of management and treatment approaches. The findings of this study emphasize a significant disparity in the occurrence and characteristics of these fractures, and the multiple cases have highlighted the efficacy of various treatment strategies, such as open reduction and internal fixation, as well as the utilization of cortical strut allografts. Furthermore, the study has identified potential risk factors that have an impact on the characteristics of fractures, providing valuable insights that could be crucial in the development of preventive strategies. This study provides a thorough examination of periprosthetic femoral fractures, highlighting the importance of a cohesive treatment algorithm to improve the handling of such fractures. Moreover, it promotes the need for a collaborative endeavor in conducting research in this field, cultivating a more profound comprehension that has the potential to drive progress in therapeutic approaches, ultimately enhancing patient results over an extended period of time. It is crucial that forthcoming research endeavors persist in expanding upon these discoveries, striving towards a unified methodology in tackling this substantial clinical obstacle.

Predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures of the hip: Results from the national PPF study

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the hip joint are increasing in prevalence. In this collaborative study, we aimed to investigate the impact of patient demographics, fracture characteristics, and modes of management on in-hospital mortality of PPFs involving the hip.

METHODS

Using a multi-centre cohort study design, we retrospectively identified adults presenting with a PPF around the hip over a 10-year period. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to study the independent correlation between patient, fracture, and treatment factors on mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,109 patients were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 5.3%. Multivariable analyses suggested that age, male sex, abbreviated mental test score (AMTS), pneumonia, renal failure, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and deep surgical site infection were each independently associated with mortality. Each yearly increase in age independently correlates with a 7% increase in mortality (OR 1.07, p=0.019). The odds of mortality was 2.99 times higher for patients diagnosed with pneumonia during their hospital stay [OR 2.99 (95% CI 1.07-8.37) p=0.037], and 7.25 times higher for patients that developed renal failure during their stay [OR 7.25 (95% CI 1.85-28.47) p=0.005]. Patients with history of PVD have a six-fold greater mortality risk (OR 6.06, p=0.003). Mode of treatment was not a significant predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

The in-hospital mortality rate of PPFs around the hip exceeds 5%. The fracture subtype and mode of management are not independent predictors of mortality, while patient factors such as age, AMTS, history of PVD, pneumonia, and renal failure can independently predict mortality. Peri-operative optimisation of modifiable risk factors such as lung and kidney function in patients with PPFs around the hip during their hospital stay is of utmost importance.

Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: clinical and radiological outcomes from a tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to report mid-term clinical and radiographic results after hip arthroplasty revision in Vancouver type B2 femoral periprosthetic fractures (PPFx). Specifical focus of the paper is as follows: (1) the description of a standardized and reproducible surgical technique, (2) functional outcomes presentation and (3) type and number of complications and implants' survival rate analysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated for hip revision with non-modular tapered fluted titanium stem in patients with Vancouver type B2 femur PPFx at a single institution. At least 18 months' follow-up period was required. Harris Hip Scores and SF-12 were obtained, and radiographical follow-up was performed. Complications were reported and analyzed.

RESULTS

The authors included 114 patients (114 hips) with a mean follow-up of 62.8 ± 30.6 months. All patients were treated with Wagner SL revision hip stem (Zimmer-Biomet), metal cerclage wires ± trochanteric plate. The mean HHS and SF-12 score at the last follow-up evaluation were respectively 81.3 ± 9.7 and 32.5 ± 7.6. Seventeen (14.9%) complications occurred. We observed five cases of dislocations, two of periprosthetic joint infections and six cases of new PPFx. The stem-related revision rate for any cause at the final FU was 1.7%, due to PJI. No patients underwent stem revision surgery for aseptic loosening. Fracture healed in all the included patients with a union-rate of 100%. The re-operation rate for any cause was 9.6%, with an implant survival rate for overall failure of 96.5%.

CONCLUSION

The presented standard and reproducible surgical technique obtains optimal clinical and radiological results with limited complication rate at mid-term follow up. Preoperative planning as well as careful intraoperative surgical technique is of a paramount importance.

Effect of Fracture Type, Treatment, and Surgeon Training on Reoperation After Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

BACKGROUND

The treatment of Vancouver B periprosthetic proximal femur fractures (PPFFs) is complex due to the overlap between arthroplasty and orthopedic trauma techniques. Our purpose was to assess the effects of fracture type, treatment difference, and surgeon training on the risk of reoperation in Vancouver B PPFF.

METHODS

A collaborative research consortium of 11 centers retrospectively reviewed PPFFs from 2014 to 2019 to determine the effects of variations in surgeon expertise, fracture type, and treatment on surgical reoperation. Surgeons were classified as per fellowship training, fractures using the Vancouver classification, and treatment as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or revision total hip arthroplasty with or without ORIF. Regression analyses were performed with reoperation as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Fracture type (Vancouver B3 versus B1: odds ratio [OR]: 5.70) was an independent risk factor for reoperation. No differences were found in reoperation rates with treatment (ORIF versus revision: OR 0.92, P = .883). Treatment by a nonarthroplasty-trained surgeon versus an arthroplasty specialist led to higher odds of reoperation in all Vancouver B fracture (OR: 2.87, P = .023); however, no significant differences were seen in the Vancouver B2 group alone (OR: 2.61, P = .139). Age was a significant risk factor for reoperation in all Vancouver B fractures (OR: 0.97, P = .004) and in the B2 fractures alone (OR: 0.96, P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that age and fracture type affect reoperation rates. Treatment type did not affect reoperation rates and the effect of surgeon training is unclear.

Outcomes of fixation of Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures around cemented versus uncemented stems

BACKGROUND

The incidence of periprosthetic femur fracture (PPFF) in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is steadily increasing. We seek to address whether there is a difference in outcomes between Vancouver B fracture types managed with ORIF when the original stem was a press-fit stem versus a cemented stem.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center, we identified 136 patients over 65 years-of-age with Vancouver B-type fractures sustained between 2005 and 2019. Patients were treated by ORIF and had either cemented or press-fit stems prior to their injury. Outcomes were subsidence of the femoral implant, time to full weight bearing, rate of the hip implant revision, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications, and the one-year mortality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 103 (75.7%) press-fit and 33 (24.3%) cemented patients were reviewed. Patient baseline characteristics, Vancouver fracture sub-types, and implant characteristics were not found to be significantly different between groups. The difference in subsidence rates, postoperative complications, and time to weight bearing were not significantly different between groups. EBL and one-year mortality rate were significantly higher in the cemented group.

CONCLUSIONS

In geriatric patients with Vancouver B type periprosthetic fractures managed with ORIF, patients with an originally press fit stem may have lower mortality, lower estimated blood loss, and similar subsidence and hospital length of stays when compared to those with a cemented stem.

The Stability of Fixation of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Effect of Implantation Technique

INTRODUCTION

Due to increasing volume of total hip arthroplasties, periprosthetic femoral fractures have become a common complication with increased revision burden and perioperative morbidity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the fixation stability of Vancouver B2 fractures treated with two techniques.

METHODS

A common B2 fracture was created by reviewing 30 type B2 cases. The fracture was then reproduced in 7 pairs of cadaveric femora. The specimens were divided into two groups. In Group I ("reduce-first"), the fragments were reduced first, followed by implantation of a tapered fluted stem. In Group II ("ream-first"), the stem was implanted in the distal femur first, followed by fragment reduction and fixation. Each specimen was loaded in a multi-axial testing frame with 70% of peak load during walking. A motion analysis system was used to track the motion of the stem and fragments.

RESULTS

The average stem diameter in Group II was 16.1±0.4 millimeters (mm), versus 15.4 ±0.5mm in Group I. The fixation stability was not significantly different in the two groups. After the testing, the average stem subsidence was 0.36±0.31mm and 0.19±0.14mm (P=0.17), and the average rotation was 1.67±1.30° and 0.91±1.11° (P=0.16) in Group I and II, respectively. Compared to the stem, there was less motion of the fragments, and there was no difference between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

When tapered fluted stems were used in combination with cerclage cables for treatment of type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, both the "reduce-first" and "ream-first" technique showed adequate stem and fracture stability.

Cementless femoral stem revision in total hip arthroplasty: The periprosthetic clamshell fracture. A biomechanical investigation

To biomechanically evaluate the stability of a diaphyseal anchored, cementless stem in presence of a proximal periprosthetic femoral medial wall defect compared to the stability of the same stem in an intact femur. Twenty-two paired human cadaveric femora were pairwise assigned either to a fracture group, featuring a proximal medial wall defect involving 40% of the stems medial anchorage distance, or a control group with native specimens. The specimens were tested under a monotonically increasing cyclic axial loading protocol. Load, cycles, and multiples of the respective body weight at implant loosening was measured. Mean initial stiffness was 2243.9 ± 467.9 N/mm for the intact group and 2190.1 ± 474.8 N/mm for the fracture group. Mean load to loosening in the intact group was 3210.5 ± 1073.2 N and 2543.6 ± 576.4 N in the fracture group, with statistical significance. Mean cycles to loosening in the intact group were 27104.9 ± 10731.7 and 20431.5 ± 5763.7 in the fracture group, with statistical significance. Mean multiples of the resulting body weight at loosening in the intact group was 548.3 ± 158.5% and 441.4 ± 104% in the fracture group, with statistical significance. A medial wall defect involving 40% of the medial anchorage distance significantly decreases the axial stability of a diaphyseal anchored stem. However, mechanical failure occurred beyond physiological stress. At loosening rates of about 4 multiples of the body weight in the fracture group, a "safe zone" remains of a 0.5-fold body weight for maximum loads and twofold body weights for average loads.

Periprosthetic fracture management of the proximal femur

The most common periprosthetic fractures occur around the hip. The most widely used classification is the Vancouver classification, and management requires careful planning and skill in both arthroplasty and fracture surgery. This article presents an overview of the diagnosis, classification, and management of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. This work represents a summary review from Latin American Society Members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association.

A cost analysis of treating postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip replacement surgery in a UK tertiary referral centre

AIM

This study aims to evaluate costs associated with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) treatment at a UK tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

This study included 128 consecutive PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014-19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by Patient Level Information and Costing Systems. Primary outcomes were median cost and margin. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, blood transfusion, critical care, 30-day readmission, 2-year local complication, 2-year systemic complication, 2-year reoperation and 30-day mortality rates. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Across the cohort, median cost was £15,644.00 (IQR £11,031.00-£22,255.00) and median loss was £3757.50 (£599.20-£8296.20). The highest costs were ward stay (£3994.00, IQR £1,765.00-£7,013.00), theatre utilisation (£2962.00, IQR £0.00-£4,286.00) and overheads (£1705.10, IQR £896.70-£2432.20). Cost (£17,455.00 [IQR, £13,194.00-£23,308.00] versus £7697.00 [IQR £3871.00-£10,847.00], p<0.001) and loss (£4890.00 [IQR £1308.00-£10,009.00] versus £1882.00 [IQR £313.00-£3851.00], p = 0.02) were greater in the operative versus the nonoperative group. There was no difference in cost (£17,634.00 [IQR £12,965.00-£22,958.00] versus £17,399.00 [IQR £13,394.00-£23,404.00], p = 0.98) or loss (£5374.00 [IQR £1950.00-£10,143.00] versus £3860.00 [IQR -£95.50-£7601.00], p = 0.21) between the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and revision groups. More patients required blood transfusion in the operative versus the nonoperative group (17 [17.9%] versus 0 [0.0%], p = 0.009). There was no difference in any clinical outcome between the ORIF and revision groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement from NHS tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce hospital costs. Cost should not be used to decide between ORIF and revision surgery.

Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several studies comparing osteosynthesis and stem revision in Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) have been published. This work aims to be the first systematic review and meta-analysis to include only studies involving statistical comparison between the two techniques.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception to October 2021 for studies involving a comparison between VB2 treated by osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty. The effect size (ES) was calculated using Cohen´s d index.

RESULTS

From 17 published studies selected, a total of 856 patients were recruited (363 osteosynthesis / 493 revision arthroplasty). The pooled ES estimates for the Parker mobility score were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.22-1.84; I2 = 87.7%) for ORIF surgery, and 0.54 (95% CI, - 0.10-1.17; I2 = 83%) for revision surgery. The pooled ES estimates for the operative time, reintervention, complications, hospital stay and needing for blood transfusion were significant lower in ORIF than in revision surgery. There were no differences in first-year mortality between groups. There was a higher proportion of ASA > 3 patients in the ORIF group.

CONCLUSION

Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty has a shorter operative time, less need for blood transfusion, fewer complications and reoperation rate and shorter hospital stay. Nonetheless, similar results were found for functional tests and first-year mortality. These results support the use of osteosynthesis in selected patients (low functional demand, multiple comorbidities, and high anesthetic risk).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Mortality and clinical outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures : a multicentre retrospective study

AIMS

The objectives of this study were to investigate the patient characteristics and mortality of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) subgroups divided into two groups according to femoral component stability and to compare postoperative clinical outcomes according to treatment in Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures.

METHODS

A total of 126 Vancouver type B fractures were analyzed from 2010 to 2019 in 11 associated centres' database (named TRON). We divided the patients into two Vancouver type B subtypes according to implant stability. Patient demographics and functional scores were assessed in the Vancouver type B subtypes. We estimated the mortality according to various patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty (revision) groups in patients with unstable subtype.

RESULTS

The one-year mortality rate of the stable and unstable subtype of Vancouver type B was 9.4% and 16.4%. Patient demographic factors, including residential status and pre-injury mobility were associated with mortality. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and Revision in either Vancouver B subtype. Patients treated with revision had significantly higher Parker Mobility Score (PMS) values (5.48 vs 3.43; p = 0.00461) and a significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) values (1.06 vs 1.94; p = 0.0399) for pain than ORIF in the unstable subtype.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with Vancouver type B fractures, frail patients, such as those with worse scores for residential status and pre-injury mobility, had a high mortality rate. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and those treated with revision. However, in the unstable subtype, the PMS and VAS values at the final follow-up examination were significantly better in patients who received revision. Based on postoperative activities of daily life, we therefore recommend evision in instances when either treatment option is feasible.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):38-46.

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: results of an online survey of the European Hip Society

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both trauma and adult reconstruction surgeons or combined teams treat these fractures following management algorithms. The aim of this study is to investigate the current treatment of PPF by members of the European Hip Society (EHS).

METHODS

An online survey of the members of the European Hip Society (EHS) was conducted. 20 cases of periprosthetic fracture were presented and surgeons were asked to answer questions regarding classification, treatment and postoperative treatment protocol.

RESULTS

A total of 132 (130 male; 2 female) EHS members responded. Mean years in surgical practice was 18.8 (min. 1 year; max. 50 years). The preferred surgical method was combined open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (30.3%) for AG fractures, ORIF with cables (30.4%) for AL fractures, combined ORIF (cable and plate) for B1 fractures (49.2%), stem revision with cables for B2 fractures (73.1%), stem revision with cables for B3 (55.9%) fractures and combined ORIF (cable and plate: 55.5%) for C fractures. Surprisingly, 10.8% suggested various stem revision techniques for B1 and 17.4% for C fractures. Strong variations were observed regarding postoperative weight-bearing protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong consensus was found for the choice of conservative or surgical treatment of the different PPF types according to the Vancouver Classification. Various stem revision techniques were the preferred surgical techniques for Vancouver B2 (91.2%) and B3 (88.6%) fractures. However, for postoperative weight-bearing, when the ORIF technique was used, a significant variation of protocols was found.

Comparative study of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fractures treated by internal fixation versus stem revision

PURPOSE

Currently, accepted treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures with loose femoral stem indicates its revision; however, recent studies have proposed treating Vancouver type B2 fractures via internal fixation without stem revision, particularly in the elderly or multi-morbid patients. Despite indications for stem revision, some surgeons tend to perform internal fixation. The main goal of this study was therefore to identify the parameters that were significantly different comparing internal fixation to stem revision for Vancouver type B2 fractures.

METHODS

Eighty-one Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated between 2010 and 2019, were analysed. The internal fixation (ORIF) and the revision groups were compared. Patients' age, BMI, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, anaesthesia type, operating time, blood loss, surgeons' experience, post-operative weight-bearing, length of hospital stay, and radiological outcome using AGORA roentgenographic assessment were analysed.

RESULTS

Patients chosen for ORIF were significantly older than those treated by stem revision (85.4 vs 75.1 years; p = 0.002). Blood loss was 390.7 and 1141.6 ml in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The surgical times were 134.5 and 225 min in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Our analysis of BMI, ASA score, anaesthesia type, length of hospital stay, surgeons' experience and radiological outcome, were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Revision did not exhibit better radiological results; moreover, internal fixation resulted in significantly less perioperative blood loss and a shorter operating time, concluding that ORIF is a viable alternative to revision arthroplasty, particularly in older patients.

Comparison of the functional outcomes after treatment of periprosthetic hip fractures with femoral stem loosening: Locking plate fixation with or without femoral stem revision

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic fractures have become one of the main reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty, with the treatment strategy guided by the Vancouver and SOFCOT classification systems. The main objective of this work was to compare the functional outcomes and mortality rate in patients who suffered a periprosthetic hip fracture with femoral stem loosening and who were treated either by internal fixation with locking plate only, or in combination with revision of the existing femoral stem with a cemented stem. The secondary objective was to compare the blood loss, procedure duration, length of hospital stay, living arrangements, time to weight bearing and major complications between these two treatment strategies. The starting hypothesis was that there is no difference in the functional outcomes between these two groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single center, retrospective study of patients treated between 2013 and 2019. Thirty-six patients (54%) underwent femoral stem revision (FSR group) and 31 patients (46%) were treated by locking plate fixation only (ORIF group). In this population, 19 of the patients had been residing at a nursing home before the surgical treatment: 12 (33%) in the FSR group and 7 (23%) in the ORIF group (p=0.33). The mean preoperative Parker score was 7.03 (± 1.48) in the FSR group versus 5.19 (± 1.92) in the ORIF group. The functional outcomes at the final review were evaluated using the Parker score, HHS (Harris Hip score), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index) and Oxford score. Fracture healing was determined on radiographs centered over the hip joint with the entire femur visible on AP and lateral views. All patients were reviewed at a minimum of 1 year for clinical and radiological assessments.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 28 months [12-85], the Oxford score was 40.4 (± 10.6) in the FSR group versus 37.1 (± 13.5) in the ORIF group (p=0.34), WOMAC of 45.5 (± 26.9) versus 50.5 (± 32.4) (p=0.56), and HHS of 62.7 (± 25.5) versus 60.3 (± 28.6) (p=0.79). The Parker score at the final assessment was 5.14 (± 1.96) in the FSR group versus 4.64 (± 2.17) in the ORIF group (p=0.33). In the FSR group, 10 patients were at a nursing home (34%), 6 of whom were not there initially, versus 6 in the ORIF group (43%), 5 of whom were not there initially (p=0.59). The mean operating time was 152±41.4 minutes (minimum: 85; maximum: 254) in the FSR group versus 89.2 (± 44.1) minutes (minimum: 39; maximum: 280) in the ORIF group (p<0.001). Resumption of full weight bearing occurred at 6 weeks in 21 patients (58%) in the FSR group versus 14 patients (47%) in the ORIF group (p=0.023). There were 5 major complications (14%) in the FSR group versus 7 (23%) in the ORIF group (p=0.35). Among the reviewed patients, the union rate was 86% on the latest radiographs in the FSR group versus 78% in the ORIF group.

DISCUSSION

There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the various functional scores, confirming our study hypothesis. Internal fixation with a locking plate appears to be an acceptable solution for treating periprosthetic hip fractures in which the femoral stem has loosened.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, comparative retrospective study.

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures and Their Surgical Outcomes Between 2011 and 2021: A Single-Centre Observational Study

Introduction

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) present a significant burden on the health service. The incidence continues to rise globally as a result of an ageing population and an increase in the number of primary hip and knee arthroplasties being performed. This is a 10-year, retrospective, observational study that aims to better understand the outcomes of PFF in our district general hospital.

Materials and methods

We identified the demographic information of patients who had a PFF and looked at how the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, time to operation, length of stay, complications, and mortality data vary depending on where the fracture is sited and the operative management employed.

Results

During the period between January 2011 and March 2021, we identified 214 cases of PFF. The mean age was 82.5 years with a female preponderance of 76%. Between 2011-2016 and 2017-2021, the number of cases of PFF increased and patients with an ASA score of 3 or more increased from 43% to 73%. Length of stay was longer in the proximal PFF revision group than in the proximal PFF fixation group. Overall PFF mortality rates at 30 days, 90 days, and one year were 6%, 10%, and 15%, respectively.

Conclusion

Over the 10-year period, there was a significant increase in the incidence of patients presenting with PFF with multiple comorbidities. Mortality rates were lower in proximal PFF patients who underwent revision procedures rather than fixation. The patient demographics, complication rates, and mortality rates were comparable to similar studies across different countries.

Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty

There is currently a debate on whether all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures should be revised.

The aim of our work was to establish a decision-making algorithm that helps to decide whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision arthroplasty (RA) should be performed in these patients.

Relative indications in favour of ORIF are low-medium functional demand (Parker mobility score (PMS) <5), high anaesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) ≥ 3), many comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 5), 1 zone fractured (VB2.1), anatomical reconstruction possible, and no prior loosening (hip pain).

Relative indications in favour of RA are high functional demand (PMS ≥6), low anaesthetic risk (ASA< 3), few comorbidities (CCI<5), fracture ≥ 2 zones (VB2.2), comminuted fractures, and prior loosening (hip pain).

In cemented stems, those fractures with fully intact cement–bone interface, no stem subsidence into the cementraliser, cement mantle anatomically reducible, and some partial stem-cement attachment can be safely treated with ORIF.

Comparable outcomes of in-cement revision and uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture at 5 years

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are detrimental for patients. Vancouver B2 fractures about a cemented stem can be revised to a longer uncemented stem or using an in-cement revision, if the cement mantle is adequate. There are reports documenting the success of both techniques. The aim of this single centre study was to perform a direct comparison of these two procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of consecutive Vancouver B2 PFFs around a cemented stem during 16 years was performed. All study cases were treated either using an in-cement revision or with an uncemented stem revision. Preoperatively, the groups were compared based upon age, gender, ASA, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity score. The outcome measures were surgical time, complications, in-hospital stay, revisions, 1-year readmission rate, and survivorship.

RESULTS

After a median of 3.5 years, there were 70 patients in the uncemented and 31 in the in-cement group. There was no difference in any of the preoperative variables. Surgical time was shorter for in-cement revisions by a mean of 45 min (p < 0.001). There was no difference in in-hospital stay, surgical complications or readmissions. Implant survival at 5 years was 93.5% for the in-cement and 94.4% for the uncemented revision (p = 0.946). Patient survivorship at 5 years was 62.5% for the in-cement and 69.8% for the uncemented group (p = 0.094).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that in-cement revision is a valid treatment option for Vancouver B2 fractures, comparable to uncemented stem revision, if certain criteria are met. There was no difference in revision rate, patient survivorship, complications, readmissions or in-hospital stay.

Treatment Algorithm of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracturens

Introduction. The ever-expanding indications for total hip arthroplasty are leading to more implants being placed in younger as well as in older patients with high functional demand. Also, prolonged life expectancy is contributing to an overall increment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. The Vancouver classification has been the most used for guiding the surgeon choice since its proposal in 1995. Fractures occurring over a hip femoral implant can be divided into intra-operative and post-operative PFFs, and their treatment depends on factors that may severely affect the outcome: level of fracture, implant stability, quality of bone stock, patients’ functional demand, age and comorbidities, and surgeon expertise. There are many different treatment techniques available which include osteosynthesis and revision surgery or a combination of both. The goals of surgical treatment are patients’ early mobilization, restoration of anatomical alignment and length with a stable prosthesis and maintenance of bone stock. Significance. The aim of this review is to describe the state-of-the-art treatment and outcomes in the management of PFFs. We performed a systematic literature review of studies reporting on the management of PFFs around hip stems and inter-prosthetic fractures identifying 45 manuscripts eligible for the analysis. Conclusions. PFFs present peculiar characteristic that must be considered and special features that must be addressed. Their management is complex due to the extreme variability of stem designs, the possibility of having cemented or uncemented stems, the difficulty in identifying the “real” level of the fracture and the actual stability of the stem. As a result, the definition of a standardized treatment is unlikely, thereby high expertise is fundamental for the surgical management of PPFs, so this kind of fractures should be treated only in specialized centres with both high volume of revision joint arthroplasty and trauma surgery.

Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Introduction

Periprosthetic femoral fracture around hip arthroplasty are growing in the world, nevertheless management and treatment options for fractures “around the stem” are still debated due to lack of high-level studies.

Materials and method

A 85-item survey were fill out by 40 Italian Orthopedic Surgeon member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia) and AIR (Associazione Italiana Riprotesizzazione) to assess their current opinion in the management of type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.

Results

Vancouver/UCS fracture classification showed a good interobserver agreement (k value = .76). ORIF were the treatment of choice for UCS type B1 fractures (100%), revision stem for B2 (85%) and B3 (100%). Locked plates were preferred to cable plate and cerclage without a plate for B1 fractures (50% vs 40% vs 10%); revision with modular stem was preferred to monoblock stem for B2 fractures (50% vs 35%) and B3 (75% vs 15%). Responders tended to postpone at 1-month weight-bearing in patients with B1 fractures. Regarding postoperative pharmacological treatment there was absolute lack of consensus.

Discussion

The primary finding of our survey confirmed the preference of ORIF for B1 fractures and stem revision for B2 and B3 fractures. However, there is no definitive operative technique for all UCS B fractures. Surgeons tended to favor locked plating over cable plating, although only slightly. This general lack of consensus coincides with the inconclusive evidence that currently exists in the literature, which demonstrates both favorable and unfavorable outcomes for both techniques

Conclusions

The absence of complete homogeneity among participants showed the need for prospective randomized studies to set up stronger guidelines for classification, management, surgical treatment, rehabilitation, and pharmacological support of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review

Background

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a major cause for surgical revision after hip arthroplasty with detrimental consequences for patients. The Vancouver classification has been traditionally used since its introduction in 1995. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was described in 2014, to widen the spectrum by aiming for a more comprehensive approach. The UCS also aimed to replace the Vancouver classification by expanding the idea of the Vancouver classification to the whole musculoskeletal apparatus. After introduction of the UCS, the question was raised, whether the UCS found its place in the field of analysing PFFs. Therefore, this systematic review was performed to investigate, the use of the UCS compared to the established Vancouver classification.

Methods

Medline was searched for reports published between 1 January 2016 and 31 November 2020, without language restriction. Included were original articles, irrespective of the level of evidence and case reports reporting on a PFF and using either the Vancouver or the UCS to classify the fractures. Excluded were reviews and systematic reviews.

Results

One hundred forty-six studies were included in the analysis. UCS has not been used in a single registry study, giving a pooled cohort size of 3299 patients, compared to 59,178 patients in studies using the Vancouver classification. Since 2016, one study using UCS was published in a top journal, compared to 37 studies using the Vancouver classification (p=0.29). During the study period, the number of yearly publications remained stagnant (p=0.899).

Conclusions

Despite valuable improvement and expansion of the latter UCS, to date, the Vancouver system clearly leads the field of classifying PFFs in the sense of the common use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w.

Metallic versus Non-Metallic Cerclage Cables System in Periprosthetic Hip Fracture Treatment: Single-Institution Experience at a Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up

Metallic cerclage cables are reliable and cost-effective internal fixation devices, which are largely used in surgical practice for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. Nevertheless, complications connected with their use have been described in the literature, including the following: third-body generation, failure and consequent migration, fraying, allergies, and injury to the surgical team. The development of new materials offers alternatives to traditional metallic cables. This study compares the outcomes between two groups of patients affected by periprosthetic hip fractures, treated with titanium cables or with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPe) iso-elastic cables. Our retrospective study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cables and UHMWPe iso-elastic cables, isolated or associated with dedicated plates, for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures with stable implants. Two groups of 30 (group A-metallic cables) and 24 (group B-UHMWPe iso-elastic cables) patients have been surgically treated in our institution for hip periprosthetic fractures, between September 2017 and June 2020. The mean age of the patients was 81 years in group A and 80 years in group B. In our study, we included fractures classified as B1 or C, according to the Vancouver postoperative fractures classification; the patients were evaluated retrospectively at 1 year postoperatively, regarding the following: surgery time, blood loss, partial weight-bearing time, radiographical healing time, Harris hip score, and postoperative complications. Comparable outcomes were observed in patients from both groups. Group A showed a higher complication rate compared to group B, at 1 year postoperatively. Non-metallic nylon fiber and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPe) cerclage cables could represent a reliable fixation device, ensuring comparable healing and complication rates with traditional titanium cerclage cables.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA): a comparison between osteosynthesis and revision in a retrospective cohort study

Background

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are challenging complications of hip arthroplasty. They are supposed to be a rare complication, but their incidence is rapidly increasing. Surgical treatment aims to achieve early mobilization and avoid the complications of prolonged bed rest. Aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of surgical treatment comparing two surgical approaches: revision arthroplasty (RA) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

Methods

Authors retrospectively reviewed a series of 117 patients with total hip arthroplasty treated for periprosthetic femur fractures in the period between January 2013 and March 2018 at a single tertiary referral center. Of these, 70 patients satisfied strict inclusion criteria. Patients were classified according to the Unified Classification System (UCS) and distributed in two groups according to surgical treatment. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oxford Hip recorded preoperatively and post operatively, Barthel Score, CIRS score (Cumulative illness rating scale), type of fracture and post-operative complications with a minimum follow up of 1 year.

Results

Nominal univariate statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the post and pre-operative Oxford Hip Score (Δ Oxford) and the surgical treatment (p = 0.008) and CIRS score (p = 0.048). Moreover, we observed a significant relationship between type of treatment and type of fracture (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analyses revealed that CIRS score was independently associated with Oxford Score improvement after surgery (p = 0.024).

Conclusions

Data from this case series confirmed that surgical treatment was correlated to type of fracture, according to UCS classification. Patients treated by RA had a better functional outcome than patients treated with ORIF, but these results are strongly influenced from the patients’ age, Barthel index and CIRS score. Also, authors found a correlation between functional outcome and comorbidities evaluated by CIRS score. Based on these data we suggest a multimodal approach to these patients, like those used for proximal femoral fractures.

New Sub-Classification of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures According to Fracture Pattern

INTRODUCTION

There is currently a debate on whether all Vancouver type B2 (V-B2) periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) should be revised. Vancouver classification takes into account fracture location, implant stability and bone stock, but it does not distinguish between fracture patterns. The aim of our work was to study the different fracture patterns of V-B2 PPHF and to analyze if there is any pattern that presents lower osteosynthesis failure rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients with V-B2 PPHF treated by osteosynthesis between January 2009 and January 2019 were included in the study. Using the Gruen system the proximal femur was divided into 3 zones. The lateral zone (Gruen 1±2±3), medial zone (Gruen 5±6±7), and distal zone (Gruen 4±3±5) were analysed and it was determined whether each of the 3 zones was fractured.

RESULTS

56 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 79 years (R 45 - 92). The chosen treatment was: 39 Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), 10 Stem revision and 7 nonoperatively treatment. In ORIF group, no implant complications (0/24) were found in patients with a single fractured zone, while 5 implant complications (5/15) were discovered in patients with two or more fractured areas; this difference was significant (p=0.0147). All patients treated by stem revision had a fracture that involved two or more zones. In the nonoperatively group, the fracture pattern did not influence the treatment because of all of them had a very precarious functional and medical situation.

CONCLUSIONS

V-B2 PPHF treated via ORIF affecting only one zone (medial, lateral, or distal) have a lower risk of complication than those affecting two or more zones. We propose a sub-classification of Vancouver B2 type fractures: B2.1 (1 fractured zone) and B2.2 (≥2 fractured zones).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Historical cohorts. Level III.

Is Stem Revision Necessary for Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures? Analysis of Osteosynthesis Results from 39 Cases

Although stem revision is recommended for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFs), there has recently been a debate whether, under certain conditions, they could be treated by osteosynthesis alone. This study aimed to describe the medium-term clinical and radiological results of several patients with V-B2 fractures treated via osteosynthesis. A retrospective study of patients with V-B2 PPHF treated by osteosynthesis without stem revision, operated on between 2009 and 2019, was performed. The type of arthroplasty, type of stem, ASA, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), medical and implant complications, reoperation rate, first-year mortality, radiological results (consolidation time), and functional results were analyzed. Thirty-nine patients were included. Their average age was 78.82 years. Most of the patients presented ASA ≥ 3 (35/39) and CCI ≥ 5 (32/39). Radiological consolidation was achieved in 93.5% of patients, with an average consolidation time of 92.93 days. The average Parker test score before admission was 5.84 while the current one was 4.92 (5.16 years follow-up). Osteosynthesis without stem revision is a valid surgical alternative in certain types of patients with V-B2 PPHF, depending on previous mobility, fracture pattern (anatomical reconstruction possible), anesthetic risk, comorbidities, and previous hip pain.

Mortality, Risk Factors and Risk Assessment after Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a devastating complication. Here, the authors aimed to determine the influence of the timing of surgery as a risk factor for mortality and poor postoperative outcome in patients suffering from PFF. A retrospective descriptive analysis of patients treated for PFF between January 2010 and March 2018 was performed. In addition to patient and treatment characteristics, we assessed mortality rates and postoperative functional outcome by using the Harris Hip and WOMAC score. One-year mortality after PFF was 10.7%. Delayed surgery after 48 h did not negatively influence mortality after PFF. The postoperative hospital stay did not influence the mortality rate, nor did it correlate with medical scores of comorbidities, general health or functionalities. Cementation of stem correlated negatively with the WOMAC score. Deceased patients had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, while American society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) scores did not show a significant difference. There were no differences between ORIF and revision arthroplasty. In conclusion, delayed surgery after 48 h does not negatively influence mortality after PFF. The CCI seems to be a suitable tool to assess patients’ risk for increased mortality after PFF, while the usually used ASA score is not able to achieve a relevant risk assessment.

Periprosthetic Hip Fractures With a Loose Stem: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Stem Revision

BACKGROUND

It is recommended revision for periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) with a loose stem. However, several authors have argued that under certain conditions, this fracture could be treated using osteosynthesis. The aim is to compare stem revision versus internal fixation in the treatment of PPHF with a loose stem.

METHODS

All patients with PPHF with a loose stem treated by osteosynthesis and stem revision between January 2009 and January 2019 were included. We assessed hospital stay, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Charlson comorbidity index, surgery time, blood transfusion, complications, reoperation rate, first-year mortality, radiological, and functional results.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were included (40 osteosyntheses and 17 stem revision), with an average follow-up time of 3.1 years. Their mean age was 78.47 years (R 45-92). In the osteosynthesis group, fewer patients required blood transfusion (32.5% vs. 70.6%), surgical times were shorter (108 minutes vs. 169 minutes), and the cost was lower, both in terms of total cost (€14,239.07 vs. €21,498.45 and operating room cost (€5014.63 vs. €8203.34). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of complications, reoperation rate, or functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared with stem revision, osteosynthesis requires less surgery time, has a lower need for blood transfusions, and a reduced hospital cost. Stem revision remains the treatment of choice in PPHF with a loose stem, but in V-B2 fractures in elderly patients with low functional demand, high anesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists ≥3), and many comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index ≥5) in whom anatomic reconstruction is possible, osteosynthesis can be a viable option.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

Historical cohorts. Level III.

Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Vancouver Type-B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

»

Revision arthroplasty (RA) continues to be considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been associated with satisfactory outcomes. Thus, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the optimal surgical strategy for the treatment of these fractures.

»

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no significant differences in clinical and radiographic outcome were observed between ORIF and RA in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

»

ORIF of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures was associated with higher revision and reoperation rates than those after RA.

»

Compared with RA, a significantly higher rate of subsidence was found in the ORIF group in Vancouver type-B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures whereas no significant difference in terms of loosening was observed.

»

In the comparison of RA and ORIF for the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures, the percentage of patients achieving full weight-bearing did not differ significantly.

»

Mortality rates did not differ between RA and ORIF in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures.

»

Overall complication rates did not differ between RA and ORIF in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures.

»

We found a high heterogeneity in applied surgical and fixation techniques in the ORIF group.

Reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip stems

AIMS

This aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System (UCS) for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) stems.

METHODS

Radiographs of 71 patients with a PFF admitted consecutively at two centres between 25 February 2012 and 19 May 2020 were collated by an independent investigator. Six observers (three hip consultants and three trainees) were familiarized with the UCS. Each PFF was classified on two separate occasions, with a mean time between assessments of 22.7 days (16 to 29). Interobserver reliability for more than two observers was assessed using percentage agreement and Fleiss' kappa statistic. Intraobserver reliability between two observers was calculated with Cohen kappa statistic. Validity was tested on surgically managed UCS type B PFFs where stem stability was documented in operation notes (n = 50). Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa statistic between radiological assessment and intraoperative findings. Kappa statistics were interpreted using Landis and Koch criteria. All six observers were blinded to operation notes and postoperative radiographs.

RESULTS

Interobserver reliability percentage agreement was 58.5% and the overall kappa value was 0.442 (moderate agreement). Lowest kappa values were seen for type B fractures (0.095 to 0.360). The mean intraobserver reliability kappa value was 0.672 (0.447 to 0.867), indicating substantial agreement. Validity percentage agreement was 65.7% and the mean kappa value was 0.300 (0.160 to 0.4400) indicating only fair agreement.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the UCS is unsatisfactory for the classification of PFFs around PTS stems, and that it has considerably lower reliability and validity than previously described for other stem types. Radiological PTS stem loosening in the presence of PFF is poorly defined and formal intraoperative testing of stem stability is recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1339-1344.

Treatment of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures using Intrauma Iron Lady® locking plate: A retrospective study on 32 patients

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) actually represent a serious public health problem. They are reported to occur in 0,1-4.5% of all patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR). PFF are commonly distinguished using the Vancouver classification. This study principal aim is to evaluate results obtained using the Intrauma Iron Lady® Conical Coupling locking plate for the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 32 patients affected by Vancouver B1 PFF and treated with the same device. Metal cerclages were additionally used in 12 (38%) patients. A clinical and radiographical post-operative follow-up was then planned at 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery; than the follow-up was annually fixed.

RESULTS

Mean age at the moment of trauma was 76,7 years. All involved femoral stem were uncemented and the they were all radiographically and intraoperativelly judged to be stable. Mean post-operative follow-up period was 5,8 years. 29 patients (91%) presented healed fracture at 6 months follow-up. 9% patients developed a superficial surgical site infection.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Literature highlights that Vancouver B1 PFF should be treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using polyaxial locking plates. However, no single technique has gained universal acceptance to be superior that the other. The current reported healing rate ranges from 40 to 100%. Using the Intrauma Iron Lady® Conical Coupling locking plate, we obtained a healing rate of 91%; this data is consistent with recent literature. Moreover, the role of cerclages in addition to femoral plating is actually controversial because they potentially damage the soft callus vascularization. Our results showed no difference in term of healing rate between patients with and without cerclages, according with some of most recent articles. A prospective study with a higher number of patients should be carried out in order to better evaluate the role of cerclages on healing rate but also the complications frequency after PFF surgical treatment.

Risk factors influencing fracture characteristics in postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty : a multicentre observational cohort study on 584 fractures

Aims

This study evaluates risk factors influencing fracture characteristics for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty.

Methods

Data were collected for PFF patients admitted to eight UK centres between 25 May 2006 and 1 March 2020. Radiographs were assessed for Unified Classification System (UCS) grade and AO/OTA type. Statistical comparisons investigated relationships by age, gender, and stem fixation philosophy (polished taper-slip (PTS) vs composite beam (CB)). The effect of multiple variables was estimated using multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Surgical treatment (revision vs fixation) was compared by UCS grade and AO/OTA type.

Results

A total of 584 cases were included. Median age was 79.1 years (interquartile range 72.0 to 86.0), 312 (53.6%) patients were female, and 495 (85.1%) stems were PTS. The commonest UCS grade was type B1 (278, 47.6%). The most common AO/OTA type was spiral (352, 60.3%). Metaphyseal split fractures occurred only with PTS stems with an incidence of 10.1%. Male sex was associated with a five-fold reduction in odds of a type C fracture (OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.41); p < 0.001) compared to a type B fracture. CB stems were associated with significantly increased odds of transverse fracture (OR 9.51 (95% CI 3.72 to 24.34); p < 0.001) and wedge fracture (OR 3.72 (95% CI 1.16 to 11.95); p = 0.027) compared to PTS stems. Both UCS grade and AO/OTA type differed significantly (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) between the revision and fixation groups but a similar proportion of B1 fractures underwent revision compared to fixation (45.3% vs 50.6%).

Conclusion

The commonest fracture types are B1 and spiral fractures. PTS stems are exclusively associated with metaphyseal split fractures, but their incidence is low. Males have lower odds of UCS grade C fractures compared to females. CB stems have higher odds of bending type fractures (transverse and wedge) compared to PTS stems. There is considerable variation in practice when treating B1 fractures around cemented stems.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):466–475.

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.

Periprosthetic hip fractures: an update into their management and clinical outcomes

The Vancouver classification is still a useful tool of communication and stratification of periprosthetic fractures, but besides the three parameters it considers, clinicians should also assess additional factors.

Combined advanced trauma and arthroplasty skills must be available in departments managing these complex injuries.

Preoperative confirmation of the THA (total hip arthroplasty) stability is sometimes challenging. The most reliable method remains intraoperative assessment during surgical exploration of the hip joint.

Certain B1 fractures will benefit from revision surgery, whilst some B2 fractures can be effectively managed with osteosynthesis, especially in frail patients.

Less invasive osteosynthesis, balanced plate–bone constructs, composite implant solutions, together with an appropriate reduction of the limb axis, rotation and length are critical for a successful fixation and uneventful fracture healing.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:75-92. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200050

Biomechanical evaluation of retrograde docking nailing to a total hip arthroplasty stem in a periprosthetic femur fracture model

INTRODUCTION

Slotted nails allow a connection to a total hip arthroplasty (THA) stem and act as intramedullary load carrier. This study compares construct stiffness, cycles to failure and failure load between a retrograde slotted femur nail construct docked to a THA stem and a lateral locking plate in a human periprosthetic femur fracture model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In seven pairs of fresh-frozen human anatomic femora with cemented THA, a transverse osteotomy was set simulating a Vancouver type B1 fracture. The femora were instrumented pairwise with either a retrograde slotted nail coupled to the prosthesis stem, or a locking plate plus a locking attachment plate. Four-point mediolateral bending, torsional and axial bending construct stiffness was investigated via non-destructive tests. Cyclic testing under progressively increasing physiologic loading was performed at 2 Hz until catastrophic construct failure.

RESULTS

Mediolateral bending stiffness did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.17) but exhibited a biphasic profile with significantly increased stiffness in both groups (P<0.01). Nail constructs provided a significantly lower torsional stiffness (0.49 ± 0.66 Nm/°) than plate constructs (1.70 ± 0.86 Nm/°), P=0.03. Axial bending stiffness did not differ significantly between the groups (Nail: 605 ± 511 N/mm; Plate: 381 ± 428 N/mm), P=0.61. Cycles to failure and failure load were significantly higher for the plate constructs (25'700 ± 8'341; 3'070 ± 1334 N) compared with the nail constructs (20'729 ± 7'949; 2'573 ± 1295 N), P=0.04.

CONCLUSION

The docking nail construct provides an intramedullary fixation with connection to the prosthesis stem; however, it is biomechanically weaker in stable fractures compared to the plate construct.

Should age be a factor in treatment choice of periprosthetic Vancouver B2-B3 proximal femur fractures? A retrospective analysis of mortality and functional outcomes in elderly patients

Background and aim of the work Revision Arthroplasty (RA) is considered the treatment of choice for periprosthetic femur fractures (PFF) presenting with a loose stem. In the elderly RA may be associated with high post-operative mortality and complications. The aim of this study is to compare mortality and functional outcomes of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and RA for B2-B3 PFF in the elderly. Methods The study population included 29 patients (>65 years) surgically treated for B2-B3 PFF at the Orthopedic and Traumatology Unit of Cattinara University Hospital in Trieste (Italy) between January 2015 and December 2019. 16 patients were treated with ORIF and 13 with RA. Mortality and functional outcomes were analyzed. Results In-hospital (6,25% vs 7,69%) and 3 months (6,25 vs 15,38%) mortality was higher in the RA group. Mortality rates were particularly high in the > 85-year-old patients within four months from RA treatment. One year (38,46% and 16,67%) and overall mortality (69,22% and 25%) was higher after ORIF. Average time to weight-bearing and ambulation was 2.6 and 5.25 months for ORIF patients and 1.3 and 2.4 months for RA. A correlation was found between delayed weight-bearing and overall mortality. Conclusions Age is a risk factor for short term mortality following RA. Patients >85 years of age could benefit from a less invasive procedure such as ORIF. Long term outcomes are generally better for patients who undergo RA but further studies are necessary to evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of RA treatment compared to ORIF in elderly patients.