Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum

Periprosthetic Acetabular Fracture after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Report on Two Cases

We report two cases of postoperative total hip arthroplasty periprostehtic fracture of the acetabulum which treated by open reduction with internal fixation without acetabular cup revision. From these cases, we should consider open reduction with internal fixation as the first treatment option in cases where spot welding of the cup to the host bone is observed.

Managing periprosthetic fractures: perspectives on periprosthetic pelvic fractures

Periacetabular periprosthetic fractures are rare but potentially disastrous for the longevity of the adjacent implants, leading to multiple revision surgeries. It is of paramount importance to identify and treat intraoperative fractures, which will lead to satisfactory results. Postoperative fractures may be managed operatively or nonoperatively depending on the patient's pain and function, the fracture pattern, and the stability of the acetabular component.

Acetabular Peri-Prosthetic Fractures—A Narrative Review

Acetabular peri-prosthetic fractures are rare but their incidence is rising due to the increased prevalence of total hip arthroplasty, the increasing life expectancy and the growing functional demand of an ageing population, the incidence of primary total hip arthroplasty is increasing. They are either intra-operative or post-operative and have various aetiologies. Several factors such as implant stability, bone loss, remaining bone stock, fracture pattern, timing, age and co-morbidities of the patients must be considered for adequate treatment. To date, the literature on this subject has been sparse and no universally recognized treatment algorithm exists. Their rarity makes them a little-known entity and their surgical management represents a challenge for most orthopaedic surgeons. This review aims to present an update on epidemiology, the diagnostic work up, existing classification systems, surgical approaches and therapeutic options for acetabular peri-prosthetic fractures.

[Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum: revision endoprosthetics]

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are an increasing severe complication in revision arthroplasty. A differentiation is made between periprosthetic acetabular fractures (acute/traumatic fractures) and insufficiency fractures (chronic fractures).

OBJECTIVE

This article introduces a novel treatment algorithm that provides assistance in therapeutic decision making for implant selection and the anchoring philosophy based on diagnostic decision criteria and the relevant load-bearing osseous structures, taking the defect situation into account.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The article provides an overview of original and review articles.

RESULTS

The essential criteria for decisions in treatment planning are based on the stability of the primary cup, the load-bearing ability of the main anatomical structures and the resulting defect situation. For insufficiency fractures the reason for the revision and therefore the exclusion of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) must additionally be considered. In the case of proven PJI a two-stage or multistage prosthesis exchange must be carried out. Based on the extent of apparent bony defects and pelvic discontinuity, the spectrum of treatment options ranges up to implantation of individual patient custom-made acetabular components.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This overview introduces a new treatment algorithm that provides assistance in decision making for traumatic periprosthetic acetabular fractures and insufficiency fractures. It also provides decision criteria for selection of implants and the surgical approach. Due to the complexity of revision arthroplasty often requiring specialized expertise in trauma and orthopedic surgery and experienced revision surgeons, the operative treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures should only be carried out in specialized orthopedic and trauma surgery centers with appropriate experience.

[Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum: osteosynthesis]

In most cases periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum are complex injuries and are extremely challenging for the treating medical team. Over the years the frequency of this overall rare entity has increased due to demographic changes. In recent years several treatment algorithms were published and provided the possibility of developing standardized treatment concepts. The classification of the fractures and a dedicated preoperative strategy are highly important for the quality of patient-centered care. In the literature the frequency of intraoperative fractures was initially given as 0.4%; however, several studies have been published in which a far higher rate of intraoperative fractures was detected by computed tomography (CT), often referred to as so-called occult fractures. The causes are multifactorial and there is significant association with whether cement-free press-fit acetabular cups were used or cemented forms. In approximately 75% of the cases a low energy impact was the cause of the fracture. In these patients systemic processes, such as osteoporotic alterations of the bony substance or the possible presence of low-grade infections should be considered. This article gives an overview of the diagnostics, planning, challenges and osteosynthetic treatment options for periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum.

[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.

Periprosthetic Occult Fractures of the Acetabulum Occur Frequently During Primary THA

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum occurring during primary THA are rare. Periprosthetic occult fractures are defined as those not identified by the surgeon during the procedure which might be missed on a routine postoperative radiograph. However, it is unclear how frequently these fractures occur and whether their presence affects functional recovery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this study, using routine CT scans that were obtained as part of another primary hip arthroplasty study protocol, we retrospectively assessed (1) the prevalence of occult fractures of the acetabulum occurring during primary THA, (2) the location of occult fractures of the acetabulum during THA, and (3) risk factors contributing to such occult fractures.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, our institute performed 585 primary THAs (cementless or hybrid) in 494 patients with DICOM pre- and postoperative CT; during the period in question, all patients undergoing THA underwent CT before and after surgery. Preoperative CT images were taken as part of a CT-based three-dimensional templating software and navigation system. Postoperative CT images were taken an average of 1 week after surgery as part of a different protocol to evaluate cup position, restoration of leg length and offset, volume of postoperative hematoma to assess anticoagulation effects after THA, and fractures that were not found on routine postoperative radiographs (which we defined as occult fractures). Patients with a history of prior pelvic osteotomy, trauma, and infection were excluded (88 patients/99 hips); 406 patients (102 males and 304 females; 486 hips) form the basis of this report. The mean age of the patients was 60 ± 11 years, with a mean BMI of 23 ± 4 kg/m2. The mean followup of the patients with periprosthetic fracture of the acetabulum was 58 ± 28 months (range, 12-131 months). Potential risk factors for occult acetabular fracture including age, sex, BMI, preoperative diagnosis, additional dome screw fixation, composition and size of each cup, and acetabular design were examined in multivariate analysis. Acetabular component designs were categorized as true hemispheric, peripheral self-locking, and elliptical; during the period in question the indications for each cup design were based on the brand of stem used. Comparison between preoperative and postoperative CT images was done to detect the fractures. Patients with fractures identified during surgery were treated with additional dome screw fixation and a 3-week period of nonweightbearing. Patients with occult fractures in this series did not receive additional treatment as we had confirmed secure fixation of the cup during surgery.

RESULTS

Occult fractures occurred in 41 hips (8.4%); periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum were seen during surgery in an additional two hips (0.4%). The superolateral wall was the most frequent location for occult fractures of the acetabulum. After controlling for relevant confounding variables, only the use of peripheral self-locking cups was associated with an increased risk of occult fracture (odds ratio [OR], 2.6 compared with hemispheric cups; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6; p < 0.05). All patients with occult fractures showed bone ingrowth fixation at the final followup, without any additional surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Periprosthetic occult fractures of the acetabulum may occur relatively frequently during press-fit impaction. We observed a higher rate of fractures associated with the use of peripheral self-locking components. Occult acetabular fractures not detected on routine postoperative plain films may be ignored if secure fixation of the cup has been confirmed during the operation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

[Osteosynthesis and cup revision in periprosthetic acetabulum fractures using a Kocher-Langenbeck approach]

OBJECTIVE

Reconstruction/stable fixation of the acetabular columns to create an adequate periacetabular requirement for the implantation of a revision cup.

INDICATIONS

Displaced/nondisplaced fractures with involvement of the posterior column. Resulting instability of the cup in an adequate bone stock situation.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Periprosthetic acetabulum fractures with inadequate bone stock. Extended periacetabular defects with loss of anchorage options. Isolated periprosthetic fractures of the anterior column. Septic loosening.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Dorsal approach. Dislocation of hip. Mechanical testing of inlaying acetabular cup. With unstable cup situation explantation of the cup, fracture fixation of acetabulum with dorsal double plate osteosynthesis along the posterior column. Cup revision. Hip joint reposition.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Early mobilization; partial weight bearing for 12 weeks. Thrombosis prophylaxis. Clinical and radiological follow-ups.

RESULTS

Periprosthetic acetabular fracture in 17 patients with 9 fractures after primary total hip replacement (THR), 8 after revision THR. Fractures: 12 due to trauma, 5 spontaneously; 7 anterior column fractures, 5 transverse fractures, 4 posterior column fractures, 1 two column fracture after hemiendoprosthesis. 5 type 1 fractures and 12 type 2 fractures. Operatively treated cases (10/17) received 3 reinforcement ring, 2 pedestal cup, 1 standard revision cup, cup-1 cage construct, 1 ventral plate osteosynthesis, 1 dorsal plate osteosynthesis, and 1 dorsal plate osteosynthesis plus cup revision (10-month Harris Hip Score 78 points). Radiological follow-up for 10 patients: consolidation of fractures without dislocation and a fixed acetabular cup. No revision surgeries during follow-up; 2 hip dislocations, 1 transient sciatic nerve palsy.

Outcomes of post-operative periprosthetic acetabular fracture around total hip arthroplasty

Post-operative periprosthetic acetabular fractures are rare, but serious complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). As the number of THA performed each year increases so will the expected number of periprosthetic fractures, thus making the treatment of these fractures an important topic for discussion. The purpose of this review is to analyze the recent evidence on risk factors, fracture classification schemes and treatment strategies that have been used for periprosthetic acetabular fractures around THA. The modified Paprosky classification is the most widely used and is a useful guide for management strategies. This classification system provides the guidelines for developing multiple treatment algorithms for decision making. Treatment options for surgical management include open reduction and internal fixation with plating, use of reconstruction cages, trabecular metal augments and bone grafting as needed. Treatment decisions are still an area of controversy and current research.

Field testing the Unified Classification System for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur around a total hip replacement

The Unified Classification System (UCS) emphasises the key principles in the assessment and management of peri-prosthetic fractures complicating partial or total joint replacement.

We tested the inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS as applied to the pelvis and femur using 20 examples of peri-prosthetic fracture in 17 patients. Each subtype of the UCS was represented by at least one case. Specialist orthopaedic surgeons (experts) and orthopaedic residents (pre-experts) assessed reliability on two separate occasions.

For the pelvis, the UCS showed inter-observer agreement of 0.837 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.798 to 0.876) for the experts and 0.728 (95% CI 0.689 to 0.767) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement for the experts was 0.861 (95% CI 0.760 to 0.963) and 0.803 (95% 0.688 to 0.918) for the pre-experts. For the femur, the UCS showed an inter-observer kappa value of 0.805 (95% CI 0.765 to 0.845) for the experts and a value of 0.732 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.773) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement was 0.920 (95% CI 0.867 to 0.973) for the experts, and 0.772 (95% CI 0.652 to 0.892) for the pre-experts. This corresponds to a substantial and ‘almost perfect’ inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur.

We hope that unifying the terminology of these injuries will assist in their assessment, treatment and outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1472–7.

Assessment and management of chronic pain in patients with stable total hip arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful operations that can restore function and relieve pain. Although a majority of the patients achieve significant pain relief after THA, there are a number of patients that develop chronic pain for unknown reasons. A literature search was performed looking for chronic pain after total hip arthroplasty and stable THA. Major causes of chronic pain include aseptic loosening or infection. However, there is a subset of patients with a stable THA that present with chronic pain which can have several aetiologies. These include soft tissue, bony, neurological, vascular and psychological causes. Essential for successful treatment is the ability to make the correct diagnosis. Thus therapy may be either non-operative or operative. In addition, diagnosis and management often may require multidisciplinary approaches to successfully alleviate chronic pain in these patients with a stable prosthesis.

Navigated percutaneous screw fixation of a periprosthetic acetabular fracture

Periprosthetic fractures are severe complications of total hip arthroplasty with increasing incidence. Most fractures are localized around the femoral component of prosthesis, whereas periacetabular fractures are rare and their management is difficult. In most cases, an operative procedure with revision and exchange of the acetabular cup is necessary. The approaches are demanding and an increased risk of complications is reported. We present the case of a female patient with a cementless total hip arthroplasty due to severe arthritis, suffering of an infratectal transverse periprosthetic fracture. After an initial conservative treatment attempt, we performed a minimally invasive screw fixation using navigated 2-dimensional fluoroscopic guidance. In this report, the literature for treatment recommendations is reviewed and the chosen navigation technique discussed.

[Periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty : classification, diagnosis and therapy strategies]

The number of periprosthetic fractures following hip replacement is increasing due to longer life expectancy and the rising number of joint replacements. The main causes of periprosthetic fractures include trauma, implant specific factors or loosening of the endoprosthesis. When planning therapy, surgeons should consider specific and general implant- and patient-related risk factors to ensure the best possible treatment. Established classification systems can facilitate preoperative planning. At present, the Vancouver classification system probably comes closest to the ideal, as it considers fracture configuration, stability of the implant and quality of the bone stock. Depending on these factors, therapeutic options include conservative treatment, fracture stabilisation or replacement of the endoprosthesis. The problems associated with periprosthetic fractures of varying etiology and the available treatment options are discussed against the background of the established classification systems.

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation and management

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming more common given the increased prevalence of revision total hip arthroplasty and increased use of cementless fixation. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures include the use of minimally invasive techniques; the use of press-fit cementless stems; revision operations, especially when a long cementless stem is used or when a short stem with impaction allografting is used; female sex; metabolic bone disease; bone diseases leading to altered morphology such as Paget disease; and technical errors at the time of the operation. Appropriate treatment of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures does not compromise the long-term results of total hip arthroplasty unless the bone damage precludes stable fixation of the implant.

Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment

Periprosthetic fracture is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) that can be difficult to treat, and can be potentially fraught with complications. The incidence of such fractures is increasing, especially after the use of cementless revision arthroplasty. The prevention of these fractures is achieved by understanding the risk factors involved. If the risks are not understood, the best outcome is achieved when the surgeon has a thorough understanding of the principles of treatment of these fractures and has access to various fixation and prosthetic devices, and allograft bone when necessary. Acetabular fractures are rare and relatively little has been reported on their treatment. Periprosthetic femoral fracture treatment is based on the site of fracture, implant stability, and bone stock. The Vancouver classification offers a reproducible description of these factors with the subsequently easy formation of a treatment plan.