Extension of the Direct Anterior Approach for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

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.

Direct Anterior Cup-Half Cage for Revision and Complex Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Surgical Technique

As surgeons' comfort with the direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty continues to increase, there is a growing interest in performing complex surgeries through this approach. Acetabular bone loss and/or pelvic discontinuity in the primary or revision setting often requires specialized implants such as a cup-cage construct. We describe our surgical technique for implanting modified cup-half cages through the DAA and show 2 case examples of how this technique was utilized in the setting of complex acetabular bone loss. In our experience, this is an effective method for complex total hip arthroplasty, with the potential added benefits of the DAA of reduced soft-tissue dissection, direct measurement of leg length, and ease of fluoroscopic navigation for implant positioning.

Femoral revision with the direct anterior approach

OBJECTIVE

The advantages of the direct anterior approach (DAA) in primary total hip arthroplasty as a minimally invasive, muscle-sparing, internervous approach are reported by many authors. Therefore, the DAA has become increasingly popular for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in recent years, and the number of surgeons using the DAA is steadily increasing. Thus, the question arises whether femoral revisions are possible through the same interval.

INDICATIONS

Aseptic, septic femoral implant loosening, malalignment, periprosthetic joint infection or periprosthetic femoral fracture.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

A draining sinus from another approach.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The incision for the primary DAA can be extended distally and proximally. If necessary, two releases can be performed to allow better exposure of the proximal femur. The DAA interval can be extended to the level of the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) in order to perform a tensor release. If needed, a release of the external rotators can be performed in addition. If a component cannot be explanted endofemorally, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy or an extended trochanteric osteotomy has to be performed, the skin incision needs to be extended distally to maintain access to the femoral diaphysis.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Depending on the indication for the femoral revision, ranging from partial weight bearing in cases of periprosthetic fractures to full weight bearing in cases of aseptic loosening.

RESULTS

In all, 50 femoral revisions with a mean age of 65.7 years and a mean follow-up of 2.1 years were investigated. The femoral revision was endofemoral in 41 cases, while a transfemoral approach with a lazy‑S extension was performed in 9 patients. The overall complication rate was 12% (6 complications); 3 patients or 6% of the included patients required reoperations. None of the implanted stems showed a varus or valgus position. There were no cases of mechanical loosening, stem fracture or subsidence. Median WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score before surgery improved significantly from preoperative (52.5) to postoperative (27.2).

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.

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.

The direct anterior approach to the hip: a useful tool in experienced hands or just another approach?

The direct anterior approach (DAA) to the hip was initially described in the nineteenth century and has been used sporadically for total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, recent increased interest in tissue-sparing and small incision arthroplasty has given rise to a sharp increase in the utilization of the DAA. Although some previous studies claimed that this approach results in less muscle damage and pain as well as rapid recovery, a paucity in the literature exists to conclusively support these claims. While the DAA may be comparable to other THA approaches, no evidence to date shows improved long-term outcomes for patients compared to other surgical approaches for THA. However, the advent of new surgical instruments and tables designed specifically for use with the DAA has made the approach more feasible for surgeons. In addition, the capacity to utilize fluoroscopy intraoperatively for component positioning is a valuable asset to the approach and can be of particular benefit for surgeons during their learning curve. An understanding of its limitations and challenges is vital for the safe employment of this technique. This review summarizes the pearls and pitfalls of the DAA for THA in order to improve the understanding of this surgical technique for hip replacement surgeons.

Evaluation of Direct Anterior Approach for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

The direct anterior approach (DAA) is an established approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) but has been sparingly tried for revisions. The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature in order to consolidate information available on revision THA using the DAA. A PubMed, Embase, and Scopus search was performed using relevant keywords. Studies reporting on patients undergoing revision THA using DAA were included for analysis. In a review of the literature, nine studies matched the pre-decided inclusion criteria with 319 hip joints undergoing revision THA. Mean follow-up of all included studies was 34 months. The indications of revision after primary THA in decreasing order were aseptic loosening (53%), prosthetic joint infection (20.7%), peri-prosthetic fracture (16.9%), dislocation (7.2%), psoas impingement (1.9%), polyethylene wear (1.2%), pain (0.6%), and instability (0.3%). Of the 319 revisions evaluated, 107 underwent a stem revision, 142 underwent cup revision, 49 underwent a combined revision, and 21 underwent isolated liner/head change. A statistically significant improvement in functional score (P<0.05) was observed for all studies reporting on functional outcomes. A low complication rate (51/319, 16.0%), which includes dislocation (12), infection (12), loosening of the acetabular shell (5), peri-prosthetic fractures (6), haematoma (4), and transient nerve palsy (6), was reported. Based on available level III-IV evidence, DAA appears to be a reliable alternative for revision of the failed hip arthroplasty with acceptable complication rates. Evidence of a higher quality is needed to further characterize its role in revision scenarios.

Hemiarthroplasty of the hip using the direct anterior approach

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive approach in total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures with a hemiarthroplasty.

INDICATIONS

Femoral neck fractures of patients without hip osteoarthritis where the acetabulum is still intact.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Lesions and infections of the skin in the approach area; hip osteoarthritis; surgeon's lack of experience with the technique.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The direct anterior approach (DAA) uses the Smith-Peterson interval between the tensor fasciae latae (TFL) and the rectus and sartorius muscle. After coagulation of the ascending branches of the femoral circumflex vessels, the capsule is opened. The remaining parts of the femoral neck are removed and osteotomized if necessary. The femoral head is removed with a cork screw. Then the shaft is supported by 2 sharp retractors at the greater trochanter from cranial, and the leg is externally rotated, hyperextended, and adducted. A TFL release can be performed which we also recommend. The femoral canal is opened step by step and extended with rasps which are introduced with the double curved broach handle. Cement and the final implant are introduced and after the trial reduction also the final head. The hip is reduced, the capsule adapted and the wound closed.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

For this approach, there are no approach specific recommendations. Postoperative treatment depends on whether the approach was extended with muscle releases and on the type of reconstruction performed. If the approach was limited to the minimally invasive direct anterior portal, quicker rehabilitation can be expected due to the reduced muscle damage. We prefer mobilization with full weight bearing as tolerated on the next day.

Advances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been quoted as one of the most successful and cost-effective procedures in Orthopaedics. The last decade has seen an exponential rise in the number of THAs performed globally and a sharp increase in the percentage of young patients hoping to improve their quality of life and return to physically demanding activities. Hence, it is imperative to review the various applications of technology in total hip arthroplasty for improving outcomes. The development of state-of-the-art robotic technology has enabled more reproducible and accurate acetabular positioning, while long-term data are needed to assess its cost-effectiveness. This opinion piece aims to outline and present the advances and innovations in total hip arthroplasty, from virtual reality and three-dimensional printing to patient-specific instrumentation and dual mobility bearings. This illustrates and reflects the debate that will be at the centre of hip surgery for the next decade.

Greater trochanter fractures in the direct anterior approach: evolution during learning curve, risk factors and consequences

INTRODUCTION

Greater trochanter (GT) fractures affect 0.6-29% of patients after direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasty (THA). Given the growing popularity of this approach, this study aimed to assess the evolution of the GT fractures during the learning curve, their risk factors and their consequences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

537 total hip arthroplasties were retrospectively included from May 2013 to December 2017 in a single academic centre. Patient characteristics, perioperative management, clinical consequences and postoperative radiographs were analysed.

RESULTS

GT fractures represented 2.4% (n = 13) of the THA, and there was not a decrease with experience. The GT fracture patients did not require any additional support during the surgery, and full weight bearing was always allowed without any restriction. This complication only happened in females, with the risk significantly increased in those > 70 years old (OR = 4.9). There was no specific consequence during the follow-up, mean HHS score was 98.5 and all of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Older osteoporotic women are known to be at risk for GT fracture during DAA THA. Those results reinforce the argument in favour of proper patient selection in DAA to lower the complications since it does not improve with surgeon's experience.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective, consecutive case series; Level IV.

Femoral Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed through the Interval of the Direct Anterior Approach

Background: we report the clinical outcomes for femoral revision total hip replacement (THR) using the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) interval. Methods: 149 patients (165 hips) with a mean age of 68.9 years (range, 33.2–91.0 years) and a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (1.1–8.9 years) were included. The indication for revision surgery was aseptic stem loosening in 131 (79.4%) hips, periprosthetic fracture in 29 (17.6%) hips, revision for stem malalignment in one (0.6%) hip, and prosthetic failure in four (2.4%) hips. Results: an endofemoral approach was used for 156 hips, and a Wagner transfemoral osteotomy was used for nine hips. An additional cup revision was done in 52 hips (uncemented cup: n = 29; cemented cup: n = 21; acetabular cage: n = 2). The overall complication rate was 14.5% (24 complications). Ten patients (10 hips) were revised (8 cups, 2 liners, 2 stems) with an average time to revision of 6 months (range, 3–23 months). The median preoperative Western Ontario McMasters Osteoarthritis Score (WOMAC) score was 52.5 (Inter Quartile Range (IQR): 33.3), which improved to 27.2 (IQR: 30) postoperatively (p < 0.01). Conclusion: use of the DAA achieved similar results when compared with other surgical approaches in terms of clinical outcomes and complications, including dislocation rate. These results suggest that femoral revision using the DAA interval can be a safe and reliable procedure.

The Anatomical Course of the Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve in Relation to Various Skin Incisions Used for Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With the Direct Anterior Approach

BACKGROUND

Although the direct anterior approach (DAA) has become a standard for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty, it involves a high risk of injuring the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN). The aim of this study is to examine the course of the LFCN in relation to various skin incisions and approach extensions used for the DAA.

METHODS

We obtained 44 limbs and hemipelves from 22 formalin-preserved cadavers, in which LFCN was identified. All nerve branches of the LFCN were carefully traced. The branching pattern and the distribution in the thigh were described in relation to the standard approach for primary total hip arthroplasty, the skin crease bikini incision, the longitudinal extension, and the lazy S extension of the DAA.

RESULTS

We found 31 (70.5%) Sartorius-type, 6 (13.6%) posterior-type, and 7 (15.9%) fan-type branching patterns of the LFCN. We observed 2.02 branches per hemipelvis. All fan-type LFCNs had 3 or more than 3 branches. We found that the main branch of the LFCN was medial to the primary DAA approach as well as to the lazy S extended DAA approach. The bikini incision and the incision for the longitudinal extension of the DAA crosses the main branch of the LFCN in 100% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The fan-type pattern of the LFCN might be harmed by all skin incisions. Chances are high that LFCN branches could be jeopardized with a bikini-type incision and the longitudinal extension of the DAA. The risk of jeopardizing the LFCN with a lazy S-type distal extension is reduced.

Transitioning the total hip arthroplasty technique from posterior approach in lateral position to direct anterior approach in supine position-risk factors for acetabular malpositioning and the learning curve

PURPOSE

Cup positioning is important for optimum hip stability, avoiding component impingement and decreasing both bearing surface wear and revision rate. Transitioning from posterior approach in a lateral position to direct anterior approach (DAA) in a supine presents unique challenges for surgeons. The aim of this study was to examine the learning curve when using standard instrumentation that was not specific to DAA.

METHODS

A consecutive retrospective series of 537 total hip arthroplasty by DAA from May 2013 to December 2017. Cup positioning was analysed on radiographs and classified whether inside or outside two safe zones (inclination 30-50° and anteversion 10-30°). The demographic data (age, BMI, gender, neck shaft angle (NSA)), surgeon's dominant side and experience were assessed as risk factors.

RESULTS

Eighty per cent of cups (n = 426) were in the combined safe zones. Eighty-eight per cent (n = 470) were in appropriate anteversion and 87% (n = 463) abduction. Two factors that were significant were identified: Cups of left hips operated by right-handed surgeons were more anteverted (OR = 4.06) and more vertical (OR = 2.23); females had a higher anteversion of the cup (OR = 2.42). Obesity, age and NSA were not risk factors for cup malposition. There was a spike of cups too horizontal at the beginning of the experience (OR = 3.86), and no learning curve was observed in the other orientations.

CONCLUSION

With our DAA technique using standard instrumentation, there were no risk factors linked to the patient identified for cup malposition. DAA-specific instrumentation is not required to achieve optimum positioning of the cup. Surgeon has to be aware of an excess of abduction at the beginning of his experience and an excess of anteversion and adduction when performing THA on the opposite side of his dominant hand.