High mortality rate following periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. A multicenter retrospective study

Management of Failed Fixation of Extracapsular Hip Fractures

Background Extracapsular hip fractures are routinely treated with fixation, and the majority heal without complication. The fixation fails in a minority of cases, typically either by 'cutting out' of the superior femoral head or through breakage of the metalwork following non-union. In such cases, if operative treatment is thought appropriate, there are two major treatment options: revision fixation of the fracture or joint replacement surgery. Methods Medline on OvidSP was searched using relevant medical-specific subject headings (MeSH) and keywords. The inclusion criteria were: study regarding management of failed extracapsular hip fracture fixation (not osteoarthritis alone, following such surgery), mean age >60 years, comparative study of joint replacement vs. revision fixation. The search returned 1053 results, of which two were relevant. Both studies were considered poor quality and neither study was randomised. Instead, outcomes from the current Hospital Trust were used instead through a prospectively generated trauma database. Results From the trauma database, 37 patients (mean age 81), of whom 21 had received cephalomedullary nails and the remainder dynamic hip screw (DHS), were identified. Fourteen patients underwent revision fixation (seven cephalomedullary nail; seven blade plate), while 23 underwent hip replacement (17 total hip replacement; six hemiarthroplasty). Although the difference did not reach statistical significance according to the log-rank test (p = 0.233), there is a trend towards lower re-operation rate following joint replacement, with the difference becoming apparent after over one year's follow-up. Conclusion  Despite the quality of evidence, the default operation for failed extracapsular hip fracture fixation should be joint replacement, based on a likely lower re-operation rate and permitting immediate full-weight-bearing. In selected instances, particularly younger patients and those who can partially-weight-bear, revision fixation would still be considered. As the number of hip fractures continues to increase both within the UK and worldwide, we can expect to see more patients with previous failed fixations, and more evidence regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different treatment strategies is required.

Predictors of outcomes after internal fixation of periprosthetic femoral hip fractures Subgroup analysis of the peri-implant and peri-prosthetic fractures Spanish registry (PIPPAS)

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors predisposing patients to poor outcomes after fixation of periprosthetic hip fractures around femoral stems.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre cohort study of fractures around a hip replacement stem managed by internal fixation. The primary outcome was one-year mortality, while secondary outcomes were local complications and healthcare burden-related outcomes (nursing facility utilization and hospital length of stay).

RESULTS

One-year mortality was 16.2%. Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score (OR=1.17; 95%CI=1.03-1.33)), Pfeiffer Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) score (OR=1.16; 1.06-1.28), prosthetic dysfunction (OR=1.90; 1.00-3.61), and postoperative medical complications (OR=1.97; 1.06-3.68) were predictors of mortality. Patients with prior prosthetic dysfunction, lower Pfeiffer SPMSQ scores, Vancouver A fractures, and fractures fixed only using cerclages were at higher risk of local complications, which occurred in 9.3% of cases. Medical (OR=1.81; 1.05-3.13) and local complications (OR=5.56; 2.42-3.13) emerged as consistent risk factors for new institutionalization. Average hospitalization time was 13.9±9.2 days. Each day of fixation delay led to an average 1.4-day increase in total hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Frail periprosthetic hip-fracture patients with poorer functional status, dysfunctional replacements, and postoperative complications are at increased risk of mortality. Postoperative complications are more common in patients with dysfunctional arthroplasties, Vancouver A fractures, and fixation using cerclages alone. Postoperative complications were the most consistent predictor of higher healthcare resource utilization.

Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures After Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to identify the risk factors of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) after cementless total hip arthroplasty and rank them based on importance.

METHODS

The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), osteoporosis, canal flare index (CFI), canal bone ratio (CBR), canal calcar ratio (CCR), stem design, and stem canal fill ratio (P1, P2, P3, and P4) of the proximal femoral medullary cavity of 111 total hip arthroplasty patients who had PFF and 388 who did not have PFF were analyzed. Independent-samples student t-tests were used for continuous variables, and Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables. The importance rankings of influencing factors were assessed using a random forest algorithm. Dimensionally reduced variables were then incorporated into a binary logistic regression model to determine the PFF-related risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean age, BMI, CBR, CCR, and incidence of osteoporosis were higher in cases of PFF (all P < .001), while the mean CFI, P1, P2, P3, and P4 were lower in cases of PFF (P < .001, P = .033, P = .008, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively). Additionally, the stem design was also statistically associated with PFF (P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that advanced age, higher BMI, osteoporosis, stem design, lower CFI, higher CBR, higher CCR, lower P1, lower P2, lower P3, and lower P4 were the risk factors of PFF (P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, P = .010, P < .001, P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, and P = .007, respectively). The ranked importance of the risk factors for PFF was P3, CFI, osteoporosis, CBR, age, P4, P1, stem design, CCR, BMI, and P2.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower P3, lower CFI, osteoporosis, higher CBR, advanced age, lower P4, lower P1, stem design, higher CCR, higher BMI, and lower P2 increased the risk of PFF.

Periprocedural clinical outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty: a multi-centric comparison of current strategies based on the NSQIP

INTRODUCTION

Recent projections suggest a substantial rise in demand for revision total hip arthroplasties, emphasizing the need for optimized perioperative care. Various revision techniques, such as isolated acetabular or femoral component revisions and total replacements, have garnered attention. Further research is needed to establish the most effective strategies for improving clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis utilized data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use File from 2016 to 2021. The study aimed to compare clinical characteristics and 30-day outcomes among patients undergoing combined acetabular and femoral (A + F) revision,  acetabulum-only (A) revision, and femoral side-only (F) revision surgeries.

RESULTS

The analysis of 18,888 patients revealed crucial differences in preoperative and postoperative outcomes among various revision strategies. Specifically, there were notable variations in patient demographics, comorbidities, and emergency procedures. Postoperative data showed distinct rates of mortality, complications, and readmissions across the groups. Notably, femoral component revisions were associated with increased risks of mortality, transfusion, and urinary tract infections, underscoring the need for careful evaluation and consideration when opting for this revision approach.

CONCLUSION

The study's significance lies in its extensive patient cohort and multifaceted evaluation of revision strategies. Although consensus is lacking on single-component revisions, targeting the acetabulum component appears relatively safer. Continued research and individualized evaluations are crucial for refining revision strategies and optimizing outcomes in THA revisions.

Surgery Within 24 Hours Reduces Mortality and General Complication Rates in Patients Who Have Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures at the Hip

BACKGROUND

In patients who have hip fractures, treatment within 24 hours reduces mortality and complication rates. A similar relationship can be assumed for patients who have hip periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) owing to the similar baseline characteristics of the patient populations. This monocentric retrospective study aimed to compare the complication and mortality rates in patients who had hip PPF treated within and after 24 hours.

METHODS

In total, 350 consecutive patients who had hip PPF in a maximum-care arthroplasty and trauma center between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. The cases were divided into 2 groups using a time to surgery (TTS) of 24 hours as the cutoff value. The primary outcome variables were operative and general complications as well as mortalities within 1 year.

RESULTS

Overall, the mean TTS was 1.4 days, and the 1-year mortality was 14.6%. The TTS ≤ 24 hours (n = 166) and TTS > 24 hours (n = 184) groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics and comorbidities. Surgical complications were equally frequent in the 2 groups (16.3 versus 15.2%, P = .883). General complications occurred significantly more often in the late patient care group (11.4 versus 28.3%, P < .001). In addition, the 30-day mortality (0.6 versus 5.5%, P = .012), and 1-year mortality (8.3 versus 20.5%, P = .003) rates significantly increased in patients who had TTS > 24 hours. Cox regression analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 4.385 (P < .001) for the TTS > 24 hours group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt treatment is required for patients who have hip PPF to reduce mortality and overall complications.

Does delay to theatre influence morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures?

Aims

Femoral periprosthetic fractures are rising in incidence. Their management is complex and carries a high associated mortality. Unlike native hip fractures, there are no guidelines advising on time to theatre in this group. We aim to determine whether delaying surgical intervention influences morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures.

Methods

We identified all periprosthetic fractures around a hip or knee arthroplasty from our prospectively collated database between 2012 and 2021. Patients were categorized into early or delayed intervention based on time from admission to surgery (early = ≤ 36 hours, delayed > 36 hours). Patient demographics, existing implants, Unified Classification System fracture subtype, acute medical issues on admission, preoperative haemoglobin, blood transfusion requirement, and length of hospital stay were identified for all patients. Complication and mortality rates were compared between groups.

Results

A total of 365 patients were identified: 140 in the early and 225 in the delayed intervention group. Mortality rate was 4.1% at 30 days and 19.2% at one year. There was some indication that those who had surgery within 36 hours had a higher mortality rate, but this did not reach statistical significance at 30 days (p = 0.078) or one year (p = 0.051). Univariate analysis demonstrated that age, preoperative haemoglobin, acute medical issue on admission, and the presence of postoperative complications influenced 30-day and one-year mortality. Using a multivariate model, age and preoperative haemoglobin were independently predictive factors for one-year mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.071; p < 0.001 and OR 0.980; p = 0.020). There was no association between timing of surgery and postoperative complications. Postoperative complications were more likely with increasing age (OR 1.032; p = 0.001) and revision arthroplasty compared to internal fixation (OR 0.481; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

While early intervention may be preferable to reduce prolonged immobilization, there is no evidence that delaying surgery beyond 36 hours increases mortality or complications in patients with a femoral periprosthetic fracture.

What Are the Mortality, Infection, and Nonunion Rates After Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are a serious complication that put a high burden on patients. However, comprehensive analyses of their incidence, mortality, and complication rates based on large-registry data are scarce.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this large-database study, we asked: (1) What is the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients 65 years and older in the United States? (2) What are the rates of mortality, infection, and nonunion, and what factors are associated with these outcomes?

METHODS

In this retrospective, comparative, large-database study, periprosthetic femoral fractures occurring between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were identified from Medicare physician service records encompassing services rendered in medical offices, clinics, hospitals, emergency departments, skilled nursing facilities, and other healthcare institutions from approximately 2.5 million enrollees. These were grouped into proximal, distal, and shaft fractures after TKA and THA. We calculated the incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures by year. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated by dividing the incidence in 2019 by the incidence in 2010. The Kaplan-Meier method with Fine and Gray subdistribution adaptation was used to calculate the cumulative incidence rates of mortality, infection, and nonunion. Semiparametric Cox regression was applied with 23 measures as covariates to determine factors associated with these outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2019, the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures increased steeply (TKA for distal fractures: IRR 3.3 [95% CI 1 to 9]; p = 0.02; THA for proximal fractures: IRR 2.3 [95% CI 1 to 4]; p = 0.01). One-year mortality rates were 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) for distal fractures treated with THA, 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) for proximal fractures treated with THA, 22% (95% CI 19% to 26%) for shaft fractures treated with THA, 21% (95% CI 18% to 25%) for distal fractures treated with TKA , 22% (95% CI 17% to 28%) for proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 24% (95% CI 19% to 29%) for shaft fractures treated with TKA. The 5-year mortality rate was 63% (95% CI 54% to 70%) for distal fractures treated with THA, 57% (95% CI 54% to 62%) for proximal fractures treated with THA, 58% (95% CI 52% to 63%) for shaft fractures treated with THA, 57% (95% CI 52% to 62%) for distal fractures treated with TKA , 57% (95% CI 49% to 65%) for proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 57% (95% CI 49% to 64%) for shaft fractures treated with TKA. Age older than 75 years, male sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.32 to 1.67] after THA and HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.74] after TKA), cerebrovascular disease after THA, chronic kidney disease (HR 1.28 [95% CI 1.12 to 1.46] after THA and HR 1.50 [95% CI 1.24 to 1.82] after TKA), diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis were clinical risk factors for an increased risk of mortality. Within the first 2 years, fracture-related infections occurred in 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%) of patients who had distal fractures treated with THA, 5% [95% CI 5% to 6%]) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with THA, 6% (95% CI 5% to 7%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with THA, 6% (95% CI 5% to 7%) of patients who had distal fractures treated with TKA , 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with TKA. Nonunion or malunion occurred in 3% (95% CI 2% to 4%) of patients with distal fractures treated with THA, 1% (95% CI 1% to 2%) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with THA, 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with THA, 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) of those who had distal fractures treated with TKA, , 2% (95% CI 1% to 4%) of those who had proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 3% (95% CI 2% to 4%) of those who had shaft fractures treated with TKA.

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of periprosthetic fractures were observed during the investigated period. At 1 and 5 years after periprosthetic femur fracture, there was a substantial death rate in patients with Medicare. Conditions including cerebrovascular illness, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis are among the risk factors for increased mortality. After the surgical care of periprosthetic femur fractures, the rates of fracture-related infection and nonunion were high, resulting in a serious risk to affected patients. Patient well-being can be enhanced by an interdisciplinary team in geriatric traumatology and should be improved to lower the risk of postoperative death. Additionally, it is important to ensure that surgical measures to prevent fracture-related infections are followed diligently. Furthermore, there is a need to continue improving implants and surgical techniques to avoid often-fatal complications such as fracture-associated infections and nonunion, which should be addressed in further studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Early Postoperative Outcomes of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture in Patients Over 90 Years of Age

The number of total hip arthroplasty and bipolar hemiarthroplasty is increasing because of their good clinical outcomes and the aging population. Consequently, the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) is expected to increase in older patients with osteoporosis. Surgery is the first choice of treatment for PFF, except in Vancouver Type A fractures. However, surgical treatment of PFF, including open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty, is highly invasive, and high mortality rates have been reported. The indication for ORIF for PFF in very elderly patients at a high risk of complications remains controversial, and postoperative outcomes are uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of ORIF for PFF in elderly patients. We retrospectively analyzed four females with a mean age of 90.7 years (91-92 years) who underwent ORIF for PFF at our institution from September 2014 to January 2023. No cases of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 or higher were found. Three patients were classified as Vancouver Type B1, and one was classified as Vancouver Type C. Cementless stems were used in primary surgeries in all cases. To measure clinical outcomes, we investigated the patient's walking ability at 30 days, three months postoperatively, and the final follow-up. Mortality was assessed during the follow-up period. One patient could walk without walking aids preoperatively, two used a walking stick, and one used a walker. All patients remained hospitalized and underwent gait training with a walker at 30 days follow-up; however, at three months postoperatively and the final follow-up, no patient was unable to walk. No deaths occurred within one month of surgery. Three deaths occurred during follow-up: one within six months, one within one year, and one within five years of surgery. The postoperative ORIF results for PFF in patients aged > 90 years showed no fatal perioperative complications and low mortality within 30 days postoperatively. These results suggest that ORIF for PFF can be considered for elderly patients if the preoperative ASA grade is relatively low.

Increased Rates of Late Periprosthetic Fractures in Larger Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Stems: Are Collared Stems a Better Alternative for Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Cementless hip stems are widely used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and have demonstrated excellent survivorship. This study aimed to investigate the effects of stem size and calcar collars on rates of revision due to periprosthetic fracture.

METHODS

All primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1999 to December 2021 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using a single cementless hip stem with modern bearings were included. The primary outcome measure was revision due to periprosthetic fracture. Stems were divided into 2 groups for comparison, large (size 14 to 20) and small-medium (6 to 13). A subanalysis was performed for collared stems. A total of 59,518 primary THA procedures were included.

RESULTS

The cumulative percent revision for periprosthetic fracture was significantly higher for large stems compared to small-medium stems (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.57 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.18, 2.09] P = .002). Furthermore, collared stems had significantly lower revision rates due to late periprosthetic fracture compared to collarless variants (2 week + HR = 4.55 [95% CI 3.23, 6.42], P < .001). Large collarless stems were found to have greater revision rates due to fracture compared to small-medium collarless stems (HR = 1.55 [95% CI 1.13, 2.12] P = .006), but no difference was found between collared groups (HR = 1.37 [95% CI 0.68, 2.78] P = .382).

CONCLUSION

Large cementless hip stems have a higher rate of revision due to periprosthetic fracture compared to small-medium stems. Using a collared stem reduces the rate of periprosthetic fracture.

Predictive factors for one-year mortality after surgery for periprosthetic femoral fracture: A retrospective multicenter (TRON group) study

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or bipolar hip arthroplasty (BHA) represents a challenging situation and the treatment is associated with high rates of complications and mortality. The aims of this multicenter retrospective study were to determine 1-year mortality and to identify predictors associated with mortality, including patient characteristics and surgical factors, in patients undergoing surgery for PFF after THA or BHA.

METHODS

We collected 249 cases of PPF after THA or BHA that were treated in our 11 hospitals (named the TRON group) between January 2010 and December 2019. We excluded patients who were conservatively treated, cases in which the 1-year postoperative outcome was unknown, and Vancouver type A cases. Finally, we analyzed 161 patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors affecting 1-year mortality. Patient-side factors such as age, BMI, fracture type, and preoperative mobility, and surgical factors such as surgical procedure, time to surgery, and operation time were analyzed respectively.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 161 patients (11.2%) died one year after surgery. The multivariate Cox regression analysis identified older age, wheelchair status before injury, and operation time as independent predictors of 1-year mortality (older age: hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, P = 0.048; wheelchair status: HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.01-33.47, P = 0.049; operation time: [HR] 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.00929). Meanwhile, fracture type according to the Vancouver classification, body mass index, presence of previous fragility fractures, type of fixation, blood loss during operation, and time to surgery were not independent predictors of 1-year mortality in this analysis. ConclusionThe 1-year mortality rate after surgery for PPFs patients was 11.2%. Factors associated with older and poor activity of daily living (ADL) performance (e.g., wheelchair status before injury), and longer operative time were associated with 1-year mortality after surgery for PPF. Surgeons should carefully plan treatment according to each patient's condition.

Addressing osteoporosis treatment after hemiarthroplasty for a femoral neck fracture: impact on survival rates after a subsequent periprosthetic femoral fracture - a multicenter (TRON group) retrospective study

This study investigated the impact of osteoporosis treatment on the prognosis of patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) following femoral neck fracture (FNF). Our results suggested an association between osteoporosis treatment and potentially improved survival prognosis in patients who underwent surgery for PPF. These results imply that osteoporosis treatment may have a beneficial effect on patient outcomes.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of osteoporosis treatment on the prognosis of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) patients after femoral neck fracture.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study named as TRON was conducted. The study population included 156 PPF patients who had undergone hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture between January 2010 and December 2019. Patients were divided based on whether they had received osteoporosis treatment before PPF injury. A log-rank test was used to compare survival rates. We conducted a Cox proportional hazards analysis to identify factors associated with the survival rate after PFF injury.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of the 156 patients had received osteoporosis treatment prior to PPF injury. The 1-year and 2-year overall survival rates after PPF were 80.9% and 75.3%, respectively. The log-rank test revealed that the 1-year survival rate with and without osteoporosis treatment was 89.5% and 78.1%, respectively (P=0.012). In the Cox proportional hazards analysis, age, BMI, presence or absence of surgery, and presence or absence of osteoporosis treatment showed independent associations with the survival rate after PFF injury. The hazard ratio for the presence of osteoporosis treatment was 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.07-0.75, P=0.015).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest an association between osteoporosis treatment and potentially improved survival prognosis in patients who underwent surgery for PPF. These results imply that osteoporosis treatment may have a beneficial effect on patient outcomes. It is important to consider that osteoporosis treatment could be significant not only in preventing secondary fractures but also in potentially improving prognosis in the rare event of PPF.

Revision rate is higher in patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following revision arthroplasty in comparison with ORIF following our algorithm: a two-center 1 analysis of 129 patients

Purpose

Effective therapy of periprosthetic femur fractures of the hip (PPF) are challenging due to patients’ frailty and complexity of fracture patterns. The aim of this cohort study was to analyze the radiological and functional outcome following PPF.

Methods

A retrospective, multicenter study in the period 2009–2019 of patients with PPF at two level I trauma centers in Germany was performed. PPF were classified according to the Vancouver classification system. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, type of surgery, complications, and reoperation rate were obtained from patient records. The functional outcome was assessed by the modified Harris-Hip Score (mHHS), general health using the EQ-5D, and radiological outcome by Beals & Tower (B&T) criteria.

Results

A total of 129 patients with a mean age of 79 years (range 43–102) were included. 70% of all patients were female and 68% of the patients had an ASA score ≥ 3. 20 patients suffered from a Vancouver A, 90 from a Vancouver B and 19 from a Vancouver C fracture. 14% of the patients died within the first 2 years after surgery. The reoperation rate after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (n = 60) was 8% and after revision arthroplasty (RA) (n = 47) 30% (OR 3.4, 95% CI [1.21–10.2]). Mean mHHS (n = 32) was 53 ± 19.4 and EQ-VAS was 50 ± 24.6. According to B&T criteria, 82% of patients treated with ORIF (n = 17) and 62% after RA (n = 13) showed an excellent outcome.

Conclusion

Patients with a PPF of the hip are elderly and at increased operative risk. In cases with a stable prosthesis, ORIF provides good radiological outcome with low reoperation rates. In case of RA, the risk for revision surgery is higher.