Lower reoperation rate with locking plates compared with conventional plates in Vancouver type C periprosthetic femoral fractures: A register study of 639 cases in Sweden

Periprosthetic femoral fractures

The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures is rising in the UK, because of an ageing population and an increasing number of hip arthroplasty operations being performed. They can occur intra- or postoperatively, and usually follow low energy trauma. They present with pain, swelling over the thigh, and an inability to weight bear. Periprosthetic femoral fractures are usually classified as per the unified classification system. Their management usually is dependent on their classification, with type A (fracture at level of greater or lesser trochanter) managed non-operatively with protected weight bearing, type B (fracture adjacent to implant) managed with either open reduction internal fixation or revision surgery, and type C (fracture distal to implant) managed with open reduction internal fixation. Owing to their complexity, these patients must be adequately optimised before surgery and appropriately rehabilitated.

Locking plate for periprosthetic femoral fractures according to Vancouver C: Outcome and radiological subanalysis of 40 patients

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) according to type Vancouver C are less common and outcome is limited reported. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective single center study.

METHODS

We performed analysis of patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locking plates for PPF occurring distally of a primary standard hip stem. Data on demographics, revisions, fracture patterns, and mortality were evaluated. At least two years after operation, we examined outcome using the Parker and Palmer mobility score. Primary aim of this study was revision, outcome and mortality. Secondary aim was evaluation of fracture subtypes within type Vancouver C fractures.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2020, 383 patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture after hip replacement were surgically treated according to our database. Among them, 40 patients (10.4%) with type Vancouver C fractures were enrolled for this study. The mean patient age was 81.5 years (59-94) at the time of fracture. Thirty-three patients were women, and 22 fractures were on the left side. Without exception, locking plates were used. The 1-year mortality rate for the sample was 27.5% (n = 11). Three revisions (7.5%) were performed for plate breakage. Rate of infection and non-union was zero. Three different fracture patterns were assessed: (1) transverse or oblique fractures below the tip of the stem (n = 9); (2) spiral-shaped fractures within the diaphysis (n = 19); and (3) burst fractures at the supracondylar region (n = 12). Demographic or outcome effects between fracture patterns were not found. On average of 4.2 years (2.0-10.4) after treatment, the mean reported Parker score was 5.5 (1-9).

CONCLUSION

ORIF with a single lateral locking plate is safe for type Vancouver C fractures with a well-fixed hip stem. Therefore, we do not recommend routinely revision arthroplasty or orthogonal double plating. Three subtypes of fractures within Vancouver C demonstrated no significant differences in baseline data and outcome.

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.

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.

Peri- and Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Current Concepts and New Developments for Internal Fixation

Treatment of peri- and interprosthetic fractures represents a challenge in orthopedic trauma surgery. Multiple factors such as osteoporosis, polymedication and comorbidities impede therapy and the rehabilitation of this difficult fracture entity. This article summarizes current concepts and highlights new developments for the internal fixation of periprosthetic fractures. Since the elderly are unable to follow partial weight bearing, stable solutions are required. Therefore, a high primary stability is necessary. Numerous options, such as new angular stable plate systems with additional options for variable angle screw positioning, already exist and are in the process of being further improved. Lately, individually produced custom-made implants are offering interesting alternatives to treat periprosthetic fractures.

Interimplant femoral fractures

The number of hip or knee arthroplasties, and internal fixations of the proximal and distal femur, is increasing in proportion to the growing and ageing population, whose life expectancy is lengthening. Thus, fractures of the femur between proximal and distal implants, although rare, are becoming more frequent. Women over the age of 70, with fragile bones and whose ends of the two implants are close to each other ("kissing implants") are particularly vulnerable to them. Reliable and reproducible fracture classifications exist when it comes to 2 prostheses, but they are less well established in the presence of one, or even two, non-prosthetic implants. Their treatment is difficult and must consider the possibility of fracture consolidation while ensuring or restoring the stability and role of the implants. Whether it is the main element of treatment or a complement to prosthesis revision, locked plating forms the basis of the treatment but it must be rigorous, considering that failures are mainly the result of technical errors. Other more invasive treatments (total femoral arthroplasty, cortical sleeves) are offered more rarely if consolidation appears compromised.

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.

Outcomes of Vancouver C Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs) that occur distal to a total hip arthroplasty, Vancouver C fractures, are challenging to treat. We aimed to report patient mortality, reoperations, and complications following Vancouver C PFFs in a contemporary cohort all treated with a laterally based locking plate.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 42 consecutive Vancouver C PFFs between 2004 and 2018. There was a high prevalence of comorbidities, including 9 patients with neurologic conditions, 9 with a history of cancer, 8 diabetics, and 8 using chronic anticoagulation. Mean time from total hip arthroplasty to PFF was 6 years (range 1 month to 25 years). All fractures were treated with a laterally based locking plate. Fixation bypassed the femoral component in 98% of cases and extended as proximal as the lesser trochanter in 18%. Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and a competing risk model was used to analyze survivorship free of reoperation and nonunion. Mean follow-up was 2 years.

RESULTS

Patient mortality was 5% at 90 days and 31% at 2 years. Cumulative incidence of reoperation was 13% at 2 years. There were 5 reoperations including revision osteosynthesis for nonunion and/or hardware failure (2), debridement and hardware removal for infection (2), and removal of hardware and total knee arthroplasty for post-traumatic arthritis (1). Cumulative incidence of nonunion was 10% at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Patients who sustained a Vancouver C PFFs had a high mortality rate (31%) at 2 years. Moreover, 13% of patients required a reoperation within 2 years, most commonly for infection or nonunion.

Periprosthetic femoral re-fractures pathogenesis, classification, and surgical implications

Periprosthetic femoral re-fractures (PFRFs) represent an emerging challenge for orthopaedic surgeons, since their incidence is growing in the last years, but very few experiences about their management have been currently published. The present study aims to (1) introduce, for the first time, an etiologic classification for PRFRs and (2) to provide surgical and pharmacological tips for the correct management of these injuries. Periprosthetic femoral re-fractures (PFRFs) could be classified into traumatic-PFRFs (T-PFRFs) and pathological-PFRFs (P-PFRFs). T-PFRFs, i.e. the "true" periprosthetic re-fractures, present as new fracture lines occurring proximally or distally to a previous periprosthetic fracture, that has correctly healed. They are generally unpredictable injuries but, in selected cases, it is possible to predict them by analyzing the construct used in the treatment of the previous periprosthetic fracture. P-PFRFs, on the other hand, define re-fractures occurring on a previous periprosthetic non-union or delayed union: the new fracture line appears in the same district of the old one. According to the etiologic factors influencing the P-PFRFs pathogenesis, it is possible to define re-fractures caused by mechanical failures, biological failures, septic failures and multifactorial failures, i.e., a combination of the previously mentioned concerns. A successful postoperative outcome, following the surgical management of PFRFs, requires the correct identification of all the underlying causes, which should be promptly and appropriately managed.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden.

A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies.

Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately.

Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems.

Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003

[Periprosthetic fractures: basics, classification and treatment principles]

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFx) are becoming an increasingly important topic in orthopedics and trauma surgery due to the rising number of endoprosthetic joint replacements. The recently published unified classification system (UCS) has replaced numerous historical classification systems and can be applied to all PPFx regardless of the bone or joint involved. The treatment of PPFx requires individual therapeutic concepts taking patient-dependent and patient-independent factors into consideration. The conservative treatment of PPFx is only justified in exceptional situations. In contrast, the choice between operative treatment and deciding between osteosynthesis or revision arthroplasty is particularly based on the assessment of the implant stability. In order to achieve fracture consolidation and also a good functional outcome, knowledge of the basic biomechanical principles of operative (osteosynthesis or endoprosthesis) treatment of periprosthetic fractures is necessary.