Treatment of type B periprosthetic femur fractures with curved non-locking plate with eccentric holes: Retrospective study of 43 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up

Do All Postoperative Vancouver B2 Fractures Require Revision Arthroplasty With Cementless Stems?

Background

Management of periprosthetic fractures has been guided by the Vancouver classification, which recommends revision for fractures around a loose femoral implant (B2). New studies have challenged this approach, demonstrating acceptable outcomes with internal fixation. This study evaluates our experience with Vancouver B2 fractures, comparing internal fixation to femoral revision. We hypothesized that in select cases with cementless stems, internal fixation would provide acceptable results with reduced morbidity.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of periprosthetic hip fractures treated at our institution between 1 January 2012 and 4 November 2022. We excluded patients who did not have prior radiographs and evidence of stem subsidence, suggestive of a Vancouver B2 fracture. Thirteen patients were included in the analysis.

Results

Four patients (31%) underwent revision of the femoral component, 4 patients (31%) underwent plating, and 5 patients (38%) underwent internal fixation with cerclage cabling. The average operative duration was 158 minutes, 203 minutes, and 62 minutes for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively (P = .009). Blood loss was 463 cc, 510 cc, and 90 cc for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively (P = .036). Three patients in both the revision and plating cohorts each received a transfusion (75%), whereas no patients in the cabling cohort required a transfusion (P = .033). All patients demonstrated fracture healing on the postoperative radiographs. No patients required additional surgery during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated that Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures with intact lateral cortices may be treated with internal fixation with cerclage cabling with excellent results.

Revision surgery for periprosthetic fracture of distal femur after endoprosthetic replacement of knee joint following resection of osteosarcoma

Purpose

Periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is one of the severe complications in patients with osteosarcoma and carries the risk of limb loss. This study describes the characteristics, treatment strategies, and outcomes of this complication.

Methods

Patients were consecutively included who were treated at our institution between 2016 and 2020 with a PPF of distal femur. The treatment strategies included two types: 1) open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws and 2) replacement with long-stem endoprosthesis and reinforcement with wire rope if necessary.

Results

A total of 11 patients (mean age 12.2 years (9-14)) were included, and the mean follow-up period was 36.5 (21-54) months. Most fractures were caused by direct or indirect trauma (n = 8), and others (n = 3) underwent PPF without obvious cause. The first type of treatment was performed on four patients, and the second type was performed on seven patients. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 20 (17-23). All patients recovered from the complication, and limb preservation could be achieved.

Conclusion

PPF is a big challenge for musculoskeletal oncologists, particularly in younger patients. Additionally, PPF poses a challenge for orthopedic surgeons, as limb preservation should be an important goal. Hence, internal fixation with plates and endoprosthetic replacement are optional treatment strategies based on fracture type and patient needs.

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.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Vancouver B1 and B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proportional Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty, and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a common surgical treatment. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ORIF in patients with different fracture patterns (Vancouver B1 and B2).

Materials and Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed from inception to August 2022. We conducted a pair-wise meta-analysis (with a fixed-effects model) on the 10 comparative studies and a proportional meta-analysis on the data from the 39 articles to determine a consensus. The outcomes were the incidence of reoperations that included osteosynthesis, irrigation/debridement and revision arthroplasty.

Results

The pair-wise meta-analysis showed similar outcomes between two groups; the risk of reoperation (odds ratio [OR]=0.82, confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.55, P=0.542), nonunion (OR=0.49; CI 0.22-1.10, P=0.085) and deep infection (OR=1.89, CI 0.48-7.46, P=0.361). In proportion meta-analysis, pooled prevalence of reoperation was 9% (95% CI, 6-12) in B1 and 8% (95% CI, 2-15) in B2 (heterogeneity between two groups (Q), P=0.772). The pooled prevalence of nonunion was same as of 4% in B1 and B2 (Q, P=0.678), and deep infection was 2% (95% CI, 1-3) in B1 and 4% (95% CI, 2-7) in B2 (Q, P=0.130).

Conclusion

ORIF is a feasible treatment for B1 and B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, with acceptable outcomes in terms of, nonunion and infection. The results of this study would help clinicians and provide baseline data for further studies validating PFF.

Biomechanics of PHILOS plates in Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of PHILOS plates in the treatment of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) and to validate its biomechanical reliability via finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models. Methods: Ten males and eight females with Vancouver B1 PFF who underwent PHILOS plate fixation between September 2017 and January 2022 were selected. The average age was 72.61 ± 8.19 years, with a range of 57-86 years old. X-ray films were taken to assess the fracture healing situation around the femoral prosthesis as well as the position of the PHILOS plates and femoral prosthesis. Two different plates (the PHILOS plate and the Cable GTR plate) were used for fixation, and the differences in biomechanical stability of the two fixation methods were compared using finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models to validate the biomechanical dependability of the PHILOS plate. Results: All 18 cases were followed for at least 1 year, as a result. The average period of follow-up was 17 months, ranging from 12 to 36 months. At the most recent follow-up, Harris scores for the hip joints of patients ranged from 82 to 89, with an average score of 86. The X-rays revealed that all fractures surrounding the femoral prosthesis had healed and that there was no looseness in the femoral prosthesis. None of the PHILOS license plates had expired. All patients were able to perform full-load walking, and pain and claudication in affected limbs were significantly reduced. Finite element analysis and mechanical testing of the Synbone femoral model revealed that the fixation effect of the PHILOS group was superior to that of the Cable group; consequently, PHILOS plates can be used to effectively fix fractures around the proximal femoral prosthesis. Conclusion: PHILOS plates are initially used in the treatment of Vancouver B1 PFF, which may be a good choice due to their simpler operation, lower medical costs, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.

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.

Biomechanical Characteristics of the Femoral Isthmus during Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Adult Osteoporosis and Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Finite Element Analysis

Objective

This study investigated the underlying mechanisms of high fracture incidence in the femoral isthmus from a biomechanical perspective.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 923 primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and 355 osteoporosis (OP) patients admitted from January 2010 to January 2018. Through a series of screening conditions, 47 patients from each group were selected for inclusion in the study. The datasets on the unaffected side and affected side of the patients with unilateral developmental dysplasia of the hip (uDDH) were respectively classified as the normal group (Group I) and he tDDH group (Group II), and that of patients with osteoporosis were classified as the OP group (Group III). In this study, first, we collected computed tomography (CT) images and measured geometric parameters (inner and outer diameters) of the isthmus. Thereafter, to study biomechanical properties, we established six finite element models and calculated values of von Mises stress for each group with the methods of data conversion and grid processing.

Results

Compared with those of patients in the normal group, the values of the inner and outer diameters of femoral isthmus of patients in the DDH group were significantly lower (P < 0.001), while the inner diameters of patients in the OP group were significantly higher (P < 0.001) and the outer diameters of patients in the OP group showed no significant difference (P> 0.05). The cortical rates of patients in the normal group and the DDH group appeared insignificant (P > 0.05), and those of patients in normal group were significantly higher than those of patients in the OP group (P < 0.001). Moreover, patients in the DDH group showed a higher von Mises stress value than patients in the normal group (P < 0.001), but statistically speaking the values between patients in the OP and normal groups were insignificant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The relatively shorter inner and outer diameters of the isthmus in DDH resulted in intensive von Mises stress under the torque of the hip location, and induced a high fracture incidence. However, in patients in the OP group, the geometric morphology exhibited no anatomical variation, and the fracture was not due to the intensity of von Mises stress.

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.

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.

Management of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures, Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze the current evidence for the use of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) constructs compared with conventional revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) for the management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was conducted. Prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. No limitation was placed on publication date, with only articles printed in English eligible.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were retrospective studies comparing ORIF and rTHA for the management of Vancouver B2 PFFs.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was the overall complication rate. Other outcomes included as rate of dislocation, revision operation, refracture, infection, nonunion, and subsidence/loosening. Twenty-four studies were included totaling 1621 patients, of which 331 were treated with ORIF and 1280 with rTHA.

CONCLUSION

The 1621 patients included comprised a mixture of different fracture patterns, prostheses, and patient comorbidities. The overall complication rate for ORIF was 24% versus 18% for rTHA (P = 0.13). The results demonstrate that rTHA has a similar revision rate to ORIF in PFFs with a loose femoral component and adequate bone stock. ORIF was superior to rTHA in prevention of postoperative dislocation; however, there was no difference between other complications. This review suggests a potential role of both ORIF and rTHA in the management of Vancouver B2 PFFs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Early experience with the use of trochanteric reattachment plate for the treatment of Vancouver type B 1 periprosthetic hip fractures

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study is to study the usefulness of trochanteric reattachment plate in the management Vancouver type B 1 periprosthetic femur fractures.

METHODS

We describe a case series of 15 (12 F: 3 M) Vancouver type B 1 fracture fixed with trochanteric reattachment plate with 3 years follow up. Patients with Vancouver A, B2, B3 and C fractures were excluded in the study. Clinical and radiological assessment of patients was done at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 24 and 36 months. The parameters evaluated were fracture union, Harris hip score and post-operative complications if any.

RESULTS

Patients mean age was 74 years (range 58-84). Eleven patients were operated with cemented hemiarthroplasty while 4 patients had total hip arthroplasty done before. Operation time mean was 137.2 min and mean surgical blood loss was 522.66 ml. All the patients achieved radiological union of the fracture at mean of 14.13 weeks. Mean Harris hip Score was 82 at 36 months follow up. 13 out of 15 hips (86.67%) showed good clinical results and 2 patients (13.33%) showed fair result. All the patients returned to their pre injury activities of daily living.

CONCLUSION

Operative fixation of Vancouver type B 1 periprosthetic fractures is a challenge for an orthopedic surgeon. Open reduction and internal fixation of these fractures using of trochanteric reattachment plate incorporating screws and cerclage wires through the plate provides good outcome in these patients. Use of this plate offers the surgeon stability against shearing as well as rotational forces.

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.

Selected Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished femoral components can be safely treated with osteosynthesis

AIMS

We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 112 PFFs, of which 47 (42%) B1 and 27 (24%) B2 PFFs were treated with internal fixation, whereas 38 (34%) B2 fractures underwent revision arthroplasty. Decision to perform internal fixation for B2 PFFs was based on specific radiological (polished femoral components, intact bone-cement interface) and clinical criteria (low-demand patient). Median follow-up was 36.4 months (24 to 60). Implant survival and mortality over time were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Adverse events (measured with a modified Dindo-Clavien classification) and 90-day readmissions were additionally compared between groups.

RESULTS

In all, nine (8.01%) surgical failures were detected. All failures occurred within the first 24 months following surgery. The 24-month implant survival was 95.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.13 to 100) for B1 fractures treated with internal fixation, 90% (95% CI 76.86 to 100) for B2 PFFs treated with osteosynthesis-only, and 85.8% (95% CI 74.24 to 97.36) for B2 fractures treated with revision THA, without significant differences between groups (p = 0.296). Readmissions and major adverse events including mortality were overall high, but similar between groups (p > 0.05). The two-year patient survival rate was 87.1% (95% CI 77.49 to 95.76), 66.7% (95% CI 48.86 to 84.53), and 84.2% (95% CI 72.63 to 95.76), for the B1 group, B2 osteosynthesis group, and B2 revision group, respectively (p = 0.102).

CONCLUSION

Implant survival in Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with internal fixation was similar to that of B1 fractures treated with the same method and to B2 PFFs treated with revision arthroplasty. Low-demand, elderly patients with B2 fractures around well-cemented polished femoral components with an intact bone-cement interface can be safely treated with internal fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1222-1230.

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

INTRODUCTION

Hip arthroplasty (HA) is commonly performed to treat various hip pathologies. Its volume is expected to rise further due to the increasing age of the population. Complication rates are low; however, periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are a rare, albeit serious, complication with substantial economic impact. While current guidelines propose revision with long-stemmed prostheses for all Vancouver B2 and B3 PFF, some recent research papers suggest that open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) could lead to an equivalent outcome. Our aim was to summarize the evidence, elucidating under which circumstances ORIF leads to a favorable outcome after B2 and B3 PFF compared with revision surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on patients treated with ORIF and with stem revision after B2 and/or B3 fractures. Extracted information included initial pathology, stem fixation mechanism, bone quality and stem stability at the time of PFF, clinical outcomes, and mortality. Results of individual studies were summarized in a table in lieu of a quantitative data synthesis due to a lack of standardized information.

RESULTS

We identified 14 original research articles including both patients treated with ORIF and with stem revision after B2 and/or B3 PFF. Five studies included statistical comparisons, all were in favor of ORIF or indeterminate. The common lack of rigorous statistical analyses and significant methodological weaknesses made identification of outcome predictors impossible.

CONCLUSION

The choice of treatment modality for PFF depends on fracture, implant, and bone characteristics. Recent data show that successful outcome can be achieved without revising loose stems. ORIF may be a viable option if bone stock is adequate around uncemented or tapered polished stems with an intact cement mantle and the fracture geometry allows stable anatomic reconstruction. Conceptional considerations support this idea, but more data are needed to identify outcome predictors.

Periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur: beyond the Vancouver classification

The majority of periprosthetic femoral fractures are treated surgically.

Surgical treatment may be revision only, revision in combination with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), or ORIF only.

The treatment decision is dependent on whether the stem is loose or not, but loose stems are not always identified, resulting in unsatisfactory treatments.

This article presents an algorithmic approach to identifying loose stems around proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures, taking patient history, stem design, and plain radiographs into consideration. This approach may help identifying loose stems and increase the probability of effective treatments.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:449-456. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190086

Are proximal screws necessary for osteosynthesis of stable-stem periprosthetic femoral fractures fixed with non-locking plate and cable?

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the cable-plate-cable technique which comprises fixation of the proximal fragment using cable loops without additional proximal screws on the plate for the treatment of stable-stem periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip prostheses.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed Vancouver types B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a dynamic compression plate combined with Dall-Miles cable between 2010 and 2016 at a single institution and followed for at least 12 months. Patients were treated with proximal fragment fixation using cable combined with screws (Group I) or with proximal fragment fixation using cable alone (Group II). Demographic data, fracture types, and clinical and radiological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients were included (Group I, n = 23 patients; Group II, n = 27). Fracture union was achieved in 49 patients with one case of non-union in Group I and no cases of non-union in Group II. Mean time to union was 5.4 months in Group I and 5.1 months in Group II (P = 0.624). Mean Harris hip score at latest assessment was 69.5 in Group I and 69.4 in Group II (P = 0.919). Regarding complications, there was one deep wound infection, one stem subsidence, and one loss of reduction in Group I, and one stem subsidence in Group II. No significant difference in clinical and radiological outcomes between groups was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The cable-plate-cable technique sufficiently treats Vancouver types B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures without use of additional screws in the proximal fragment.

Vancouver B2 Peri-Prosthetic Fractures in Cemented Femoral Implants can be Treated With Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Alone Without Revision

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes of 52 consecutive Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic fractures around cemented polished double-tapered stems treated by open reduction and internal fixation in 2 trauma centers in 2 countries.

METHODS

Outcomes included modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Harris Pain Score, and return to pre-injury mobility. Fracture healing was assessed; implant subsidence measured and complications including re-operations reported.

RESULTS

No patient was lost to follow-up. Median patient age at operation was 82 years (range 43-98); Harris pain scores showed minimal pain (median 42, range 10-44) at latest follow-up. Median total subsidence at 1 year was 1.1 mm (range 0-5.4), the majority of which occurred within the cement mantle. No subsequent femoral stem revision was required (median 2.9 years, 0-10); however, there were 3 re-operations: 1 re-operation for pre-existing recurrent dislocation involving head liner exchange and 2 for repeat fixation due to metal fatigue. Two additional fractures occurred below the new plating, requiring further plating whilst still retaining the original stems.

CONCLUSION

Anatomical reduction and open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic fractures should be considered as an appropriate treatment solution for frail elderly patients with a peri-prosthetic fracture around cemented polished double-tapered stems.

Interprosthetic femoral fractures: Morbidity and mortality in a retrospective, multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Interprosthetic femoral fractures (IFF) are becoming more frequent; however they have not been the subject of many publications and the largest study on this topic includes only 30 cases. The complication rate and clinical outcomes have only been evaluated in small case series. This led us to conduct a retrospective, multicenter, observational study in IFF patients with at least 12 months' follow-up to (1) determine the mortality and morbidity (2) determine the clinical and radiological outcomes and (3) identify elements of the treatment indications.

HYPOTHESIS

The morbidity and mortality rates will be comparable to those in recent studies on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 51 patients (49 women, 2 men) with a mean age of 82.8±9.2 years [55-97], a mean Parker score of 4.9±2.4 and a mean Katz score of 4.4±1.4 who had suffered an IFF between 2009 and 2015. According to the SoFCOT modifications of the Vancouver classification, 30 fractures were interprosthetic in the shaft segment where there were no implants (19 double C and 11 type D (corresponding to a type C with less than two diaphysis widths between the extension stems of the hip and knee implants)) while 21 were periprosthetic, with 12 around the THA (11 B1 and 1 B3) and 9 around the TKA (8 B1 and 1 B3). One patient was treated conservatively with an external fixator but died the next day, 2 patients received a new total hip arthroplasty and 47 underwent plate fixation of their fracture (one patient was treated non-operatively because of poor medical condition).

RESULTS

One patient was lost to follow-up, and nine died during the first 6 months. Six early surgical site complications occurred and 13 general ones. Within 1 year of the IFF, there were six mechanical complications, two surgical site infections and two cases of loosening. The mean follow-up was 27.6±17.2 months. The mean time to union was 19.25±8.8 weeks. The mean final Parker score was 3.37±2.6 and the mean Katz score was 2.98±1.8; both were significantly lower than the initial scores. Six patients died between months 12 and 50. The overall mortality at the final review was 31% (16/51) with a median survival of 3.45 years.

DISCUSSION

Our hypothesis was not confirmed because the mortality and morbidity in our study were higher than in other published studies. In the six relevant studies identified, the surgical site infection rate was 12.3%, the major revision rate was 11.6% and the mortality rate was 6.5%. In our study, these values were 24%, 24% and 31%, respectively. These worse results may be explained by the very fragile nature of the studied population and the surgeons not following appropriate technical rules for fracture fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Retrospective study.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures around tumor endoprostheses treated with limited revision surgery combined with allograft: A case report

RATIONALE

Old periprosthetic femoral fractures (OPFFs) around a tumor prosthesis of the knee present formidable problems for orthopedic oncologists; large bone defects and inappropriate biomechanics of the revision implant design can impair successful reconstruction. Limited literature is available on the reconstruction of OPFFs using revision combined with massive allograft following resection of a bone tumor around the knee joint. In this study, we present the first reported case in the English literature of a limited revision followed by several segmental allografts for the reconstruction of the knee joint.

PATIENT CONCERNS

This case involved a 45-year-old female who was treated for a malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) of the knee joint with surgical excision of the lesion and replacement of the defect using endoprosthetic reconstruction when she was 25 years old. Her surgical history was remarkable for a left tumoral knee prosthesis implanted 20 years ago. Nine years before revision, the patient had fall damage; however, she was able to walk independently and with moderate pain. In the 9-year period, prosthesis malfunction caused progressive left lower extremity shortening and a persistent swelling pain in the left thigh.

DIAGNOSES

According to her clinical history, imaging results and physical examination, we confirmed the diagnosis of OPFFs potentially due to aseptic loosening and trauma injury.

INTERVENTIONS

In this study, we present the first case of OPFFs around a tumor endoprosthesis that was successfully treated using limited revision combined with a massive allograft.

OUTCOMES

At 80 months after revision surgery, the patient had made a sufficient recovery from her symptoms. The bone union was complete without tumor recurrence or implant failure.

LESSONS

We propose that if prosthesis fracture is detected, revision surgery should be attempted as early as possible, and for patients with OPFFs, the use of limited revision combined with massive allografts may be useful for safely and adequately reconstructing OPFFs around the knee joint. However, patients should be followed-up closely after surgical treatment because of the high risk of revision.

Radiologic outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation for cementless stems in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiologic outcomes of open reduction and lateral plating with wiring in the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Methods

We retrospectively recruited 37 patients treated with ORIF with lateral plating and wiring for Vancouver B2 fractures. The 27 patients (15 men and 12 women; mean age: 70.8 ± 8.3 years) without follow-up loss had achieved complete bony union without notable complications. The average union period was checked after operation with radiologic findings. Radiologic outcomes were evaluated by ipsilateral limb length discrepancy (LLD) and subsidence between immediate postoperative length and length at postoperative 1 year after adjusting for magnification differences. The average distance to which the retained stem sunk down was investigated between immediate postoperative radiographs and final radiographs showing union.

Results

Ten patients could not be evaluated, because of mortality or failure to follow up. The average time to union was 18.3 weeks, and the average distance of stem sinking was 2.5 ± 1.7 mm (range: 0–7.2 mm), which was significantly different between immediate postoperative radiographs and final radiographs. There was no case with loss of reduction or loss of fixation, requiring revision surgery.

Conclusion

Open reduction and lateral plating with wiring as a treatment for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures produced good radiologic outcomes with successful bony union. ORIF can be considered the alternative option for treating patients with Vancouver B2 PPF, instead of stem revision surgery.

Level of evidence

Level IV, Therapeutic study.

Cable plating with a single strut allograft in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur

BACKGROUND:

Hip arthroplasties are increasing worldwide resulting in an increasing number of periprosthetic fractures. These fractures are difficult to treat with various the different fixation or revision options described, many of which have high complication rates.

PURPOSE:

To investigate whether our described method of treating periprosthetic fractures is an effective, safe and reproducible method of treating patients.

METHODS:

We describe the largest series of a cable plate fixation system combined with a single cortical strut allograft to treat patients with periprosthetic fractures of the hip (Unified Classification System B1 and selected B2, C and D).

RESULTS:

Between July 2006 and March 2015, 28 patients were treated using this method. The mean follow-up was 2.2 years (3 months to 9 years). The mean Oxford Hip Score (OHS) at final follow-up was 32 and the mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) 67. There were 3 complications including 1 failure that required revision surgery, 1 case of infection successfully treated with debridement, antibiotics and retention, and a case of discomfort from the metalwork which we managed conservatively.

CONCLUSION:

This method of anatomical restoration of the femur with dual-plane fixation is a highly effective method of treating this complex group of patients, and should be considered as a first line of treatment. It shows that there is a role for successful treatment with internal fixation of certain B2, C and D fractures with this technique.

Load transfer and periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthoplasty: Comparison of periprosthetic fractures of femora implanted with cementless distal-load or proximal-load femoral components and measurement of the femoral strain at the time of implantation

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the causes and mechanisms underlying periprosthetic fractures around femoral components particularly in relation to the stem design. In an in vitro study 20 pairs of fresh cadaveric femora were loaded to fracture axially and transversally.

FINDINGS

When proximal femoral strain was measured at the time of impaction of cementless stems the load transfer was determined by the underlying anatomy rather than by the shape of the stem, so that the so-called "load transfer" properties - proximal or distal - ascribed to stem designs are a myth. The axial-load and the transverse-load model were then exposed to loads to failure (fracture) and showed a biphasic pattern throughout independent of the impact direction. In the second phase, the fracture phase proper, the bone behaved like a brittle solid. Failure occurred very rapidly within less than 5 milliseconds. The forces to failure were between 2 and 11 kN. Most of the fractures (82.5%) occurred above the stem tip.

INTERPRETATION

Note that the study was confined to early preosteointegration fractures. Neither the stem design nor the impact direction, i.e. on the knee or on the side of the hip, was related to the fracture morphology.

Osteosynthesis of periprosthetic type A and B femoral fractures using an unlocked plate with integrated cerclage cable and trochanteric hook: A multicenter retrospective study of 45 patients with mean follow-up of 20 months

INTRODUCTION

Femoral periprosthetic fracture (FPF) is a frequent complication in dependent elderly persons, with a limited life expectancy. Their management is difficult and the choice between osteosynthesis and prosthesis is still matter of discussion. To date, there is no study on unlocked plate with integrated cerclage cable and trochanteric hook for this indication. The objectives of this study were to analyze fracture healing, complication rate and functional outcome. Our hypothesis is that this technique allows a high rate of consolidation and a return to the previous state in terms of autonomy and place of residence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter study between 2010 and 2015. The inclusion criteria were: patients with type A and B FPF according to the classification of Vancouver who received osteosynthesis hook plate. The evaluation focused on the consolidation period, complications and pre and postoperative Parker and Katz scores. Death, nonunion, dislocation, infection and failure of fixation were considered major complications.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated at mean 20 months (6-72). All fractures consolidated at a mean 7 weeks (6-10), except one that has not undergone further surgery in the absence of functional impairment. Parker score decreased from 6.4 to 4.9 (p=0.03) and Katz score from 4.8 to 4.3 (p=0.045). Five patients died within the year of the operation. Five patients living at home preoperatively were admitted to an institution, the others returned to their retirement home or nursing home.

CONCLUSION

This plate allows for a quick and effective management of patients with FPF. The low rate of complications and the very good consolidation rate lead us to use the same plate even for class B2 or B3 fractures in some patients with precarious health condition who cannot tolerate major revision surgery: Elderly, ASA score >3, loss of autonomy, Katz score <4.

Interprosthetic and Peri-Implant Fractures: Principles of Operative Fixation and Future Directions

Advances in medicine and orthopaedic implant technology have dramatically increased the number of patients sustaining interprosthetic, inter-, or peri-implant fractures. For these complex clinical scenarios, there are currently no available treatment algorithms. In this review, we outline the principles, strategies, and techniques to obtain both successful reconstruction and maximum function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A systematic review of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures by performing a systematic review of the methods of surgical treatment which have been reported.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For inclusion, studies required a minimum of ten patients with a Vancouver type B2 and/or ten patients with a Vancouver type B3 fracture, a minimum mean follow-up of two years and outcomes which were matched to the type of fracture. Studies were also required to report the rate of re-operation as an outcome measure. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database.

Results

A total of 22 studies were included based on the eligibility criteria, including 343 B2 fractures and 167 B3 fractures. The mean follow-up ranged from 32 months to 74 months. Of 343 Vancouver B2 fractures, the treatment in 298 (86.8%) involved revision arthroplasty and 45 (12.6%) were treated with internal fixation alone. A total of 37 patients (12.4%) treated with revision arthroplasty and six (13.3%) treated by internal fixation only underwent further re-operation. Of 167 Vancouver B3 fractures, the treatment in 160 (95.8%) involved revision arthroplasty and eight (4.8%) were treated with internal fixation without revision. A total of 23 patients (14.4%) treated with revision arthroplasty and two (28.6%) treated only with internal fixation required re-operation.

Conclusion

A significant proportion, particularly of B2 fractures, were treated without revision of the stem. These were associated with a higher rate of re-operation. The treatment of B3 fractures without revision of the stem resulted in a high rate of re-operation. This demonstrates the importance of careful evaluation and accurate characterisation of the fracture at the time of presentation to ensure the correct management. There is a need for improvement in the reporting of data in case series recording the outcome of the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures. We have suggested a minimum dataset to improve the quality of data in studies dealing with these fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):17–25.

Midterm Results of Consecutive Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type A and B

Surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures has a high complication and mortality rate of more than 10%. The aim of this study is to report the outcome of a consecutive single center patient group. Thirty-four consecutive patients (mean age 81.2+/-8.5 years, 14 male, 20 female) with a periprosthetic femoral fracture Vancouver type A (n=5) or type B (n=29) were followed-up after 43.2 months, none of the patients were lost to follow-up. Nineteen of the patients were treated through change of the stem and cerclage fixation, five by plates and ten by cerclage cables. One successfully treated infection was observed. No further complications have been reported peri- or postoperatively, therefore resulting in 2.9% overall complication rate. These results demonstrate that precisely selected revision surgery protocol following periprosthetic femoral fractures within elderly multimorbid patients may lead to beneficial outcomes at a low risk of complications.

Peri-prosthetic fractures around tumor endoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of eighteen cases

PURPOSE

Tumour hip and knee endoprostheses have become the mainstay for reconstruction of patients with bone tumours. Fixation into host bone has improved over time. However, some patients present with a peri-prosthetic fracture over follow-up. The objective of this study was to analyse the mode of presentation and survival of implant after a peri-prosthetic fracture around a tumour endoprosthesis.

METHODS

Eighteen peri-prosthetic fractures (17 patients) were included. All patients were treated at a tertiary care center. There were 11 (65%) women; the median age at the time of fracture was 38 years old. All implants were cemented and all knee endoprostheses were fixed-hinge. Twelve (67%) fractures occurred after femoral resection and six (33%) fractures after proximal tibial resection.

RESULTS

There were three femoral neck fractures (UCS C), three femoral shaft type C fractures, two femoral shaft type B1, one tibial shaft type B2, three tibial shaft type C, three ankle fractures (UCS C) and three patella fractures (UCS F). Two fractures were treated conservatively and 16 were operated on. Only one patient had the implant revised. There were eight (44%) failures over follow-up; none of the conservative treatment failed. The cumulative probability of failure for any reason was 27% (8-52) and 55% (22-79) at five and ten years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-prosthetic fractures around massive endoprostheses are different from that of standard implants. There are more type C fractures; internal fixation is an attractive option at the time of presentation but the risk of revision over follow-up is high and patients should be informed accordingly.