Femoral revision in periprosthetic fractures using a titanium modular fluted tapered stem: mortality and clinical and radiological outcomes

A Consecutive Series of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Contemporary Monoblock Versus Modular Revision Stems: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are the implant design of choice for managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs), producing reliable results over the past few decades. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with contemporary monoblock versus modular TFTs.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 113 patients (72 women, 64%, mean age 70 years [range, 26 to 96]) who had a B2 PFF were treated with either a monoblock (n = 42) or modular (n = 71) TFT stem between 2008 and 2021. The mean body mass index was 30 ± 7. The mean follow-up was 2.9 years. A radiographic review was performed to assess leg length and offset restoration, endosteal cortical contact length, and stem subsidence. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine survivorship without revision, reoperation, or dislocation.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the restoration of leg length (0.3 ± 8.0 mm) or offset (2.8 ± 8.2 mm) between the monoblock and modular cohorts (P > .05). Mean endosteal cortical contact length (47.2 ± 26.6 versus 46.7 ± 2 6.4 mm, P = .89) and stem subsidence (2.7 ± 3.5 versus 2.4 ± 3.2 mm, P = .66) did not differ. No difference in patient-reported outcome measures (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement; Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical and Mental; visual analog score; and Lower Extremity Activity Scale) between the groups was observed. Survivorship at 2 years free from reoperation, revision, and dislocation was 90.4, 90.3, and 97.6%, respectively, for the monoblock cohort; and 84.0, 86.9, and 90.0%, respectively, for the modular cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in radiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between patients treated with monoblock or modular TFTs in this large series of B2 PFFs.

Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular Fluted Tapered Stems: Long-Term Follow-up of 515 Cases

BACKGROUND

Modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components are frequently utilized in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). However, long-term follow-up has been limited. The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at long-term follow-up, with specific emphasis on implant survivorship, radiographic results, and complications in a large cohort of aseptic revision THAs using MFT stems.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 515 aseptic femoral revisions performed with 2 MFT stem designs in the total joint registry of a single tertiary care academic institution from 1999 to 2013. Serial radiographs were reviewed for subsidence of >5 mm. The mean follow-up (and standard deviation) was 10 ± 5 years (range, 2 to 21 years). A competing risk model accounting for death was utilized.

RESULTS

The 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 12%. There were 57 revisions, 27 of which involved revision of the fluted tapered component (FTC). Dislocation (n = 19), periprosthetic joint infection (n = 15), and aseptic loosening of the FTC (n = 11) were the most common reasons for revision. The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 16%. The 15-year cumulative incidences were 6% for any FTC revision and 2% for FTC revision for aseptic loosening. Stem subsidence of >5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases, and all but 1 stem was stable at the most recent follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This large series of MFT stems used in aseptic revision THAs had a 2% incidence of subsequent revision of the FTC for aseptic loosening at 15 years. Dislocation and infection were the most common reasons for any revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Monoblock tapered stems in management of UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures in revision total hip arthroplasty

Aims

United Classification System (UCS) B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) have been commonly managed with modular tapered stems. No study has evaluated the use of monoblock fluted tapered titanium stems for this indication. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a monoblock stems on implant survivorship, postoperative outcomes, radiological outcomes, and osseointegration following treatment of THA UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent revision THA (rTHA) for periprosthetic UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fracture who received a single design monoblock fluted tapered titanium stem at two large, tertiary care, academic hospitals. A total of 72 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria (68 UCS B2, and four UCS B3 fractures). Primary outcomes of interest were radiological stem subsidence (> 5 mm), radiological osseointegration, and fracture union. Sub-analysis was also done for 46 patients with minimum one-year follow-up.

Results

For the total cohort, stem osseointegration, fracture union, and stem subsidence were 98.6%, 98.6%, and 6.9%, respectively, at latest follow-up (mean follow-up 27.0 months (SD 22.4)). For patients with minimum one-year of follow-up, stem osseointegration, fracture union, and stem subsidence were 97.8%, 97.8%, and 6.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

Monoblock fluted stems can be an acceptable modality for the management of UCS B2 periprosthetic fractures in rTHAs due to high rates of stem osseointegration and survival, and the low rates of stem subsidence, and revision. Further research on the use of this stem for UCS B3 periprosthetic fractures is warranted to determine if the same conclusion can be made for this fracture pattern.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Modular Fluted Tapered Stem for a Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture

Background

As the number of primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed each year continues to rise, so too do the number of complications, including periprosthetic femoral fracture1-9. Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures are difficult to treat because they require the surgeon to simultaneously manage a femoral fracture and gain new implant fixation. Fluted tapered stems have advanced the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures by providing immediate axial and rotational implant fixation distal to the fracture10-18. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the added practical advantage of allowing length and anteversion adjustment after implantation of the distal fixation portion of the stem.

Description

In this technique, a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy incorporating the fracture is utilized to gain access to the loose femoral implant and femoral diaphyseal canal. The femoral diaphyseal canal is then sequentially reamed in 1-mm increments. A fluted tapered stem with the appropriate length, diameter, and axial and rotational stability is inserted into the canal. A proximal body is then chosen that establishes the appropriate leg length, femoral offset, and version. The final proximal body is engaged into the fluted tapered stem. Finally, the fracture is fixed around the implant with a combination of cables or wires.

Alternatives

Historically, implants such as extensively porous coated stems were utilized to treat Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Unfortunately, these implants were associated with high rates of failure and revision7,9.

Rationale

The introduction of a fluted tapered stem provided a more reliable implant that achieves immediate axial and rotational stability. In addition, utilizing a fluted tapered stem allowed for a more soft-tissue-preserving approach to these complex injuries, in turn allowing the fracture to be reduced around the implant proximally with cerclage cables and or wires. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the additional advantage of allowing the surgeon to modify leg length, offset, and femoral version, independently of the fluted tapered stem. As a result of these unique advantages, these stems were introduced several years ago for the treatment of Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Expected Outcomes

Contemporary series have demonstrated that the use of a modular fluted tapered stem leads to improved implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with lower complication rates for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures1,10-12,14-19.

Important Tips

Template both the fluted tapered stem and proximal body preoperatively. The proximal body should be templated at the ideal hip center of rotation that appropriately restores leg lengths and offset. Template the fluted tapered stem so that it provides appropriate isthmic fit and bypasses the most distal extent of the fracture by at least 2 cortical diameters.Utilize a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy for your exposure in order to facilitate visualization of the fracture and to provide direct access to the femoral canal.Place a prophylactic cable prior to preparing the femur for the implant in order to help prevent iatrogenic fracture.Place a trial stem and obtain intraoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs in order to assess the position of the implants and the risk of anterior cortical perforation.When placing the final implants, be sure the fluted tapered stem has both axial and rotational stability.Reduce and fix the fracture after the final implants are placed and the hip is reduced.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AP = anteroposteriorMFT = modular fluted tapered (stem)ETO = extended trochanteric osteotomyTHA = total hip arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyPJI = periprosthetic joint infection.

Modular Fluted Tapered Stems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Excellent Results in 171 Cases

BACKGROUND

Modular fluted tapered (MFT) stems have advanced treatment of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures, but series to date have been limited with respect to cohort size and follow-up duration. The purpose of this study was to determine implant survivorship, radiographic results, complications, and clinical outcomes of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with MFT stems in a large series of patients.

METHODS

We identified 171 Vancouver B2 (109) and B3 (62) periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with an MFT stem between 2000 and 2018 using our institutional total joint registry. The mean age was 75 years, 50% were female, and the mean body mass index was 29 kg/m2. The median stem diameter was 18 mm and median stem length was 210 mm. The cumulative incidences of revision and reoperation with death as the competing risk were calculated, radiographs were reviewed, and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Harris hip score (HHS). The mean follow-up was 5 years.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 10%. There were 17 revisions, of which only 3 were for the distal fluted portion of the MFT stem. Revision indications included periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 6) and dislocation (n = 11). The 10-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 15%. In addition to the above 17 revisions, there were 7 reoperations for superficial wound complications (n = 4), Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 1), vascular occlusion (n = 1), and acetabular cartilage degeneration requiring an acetabular component (n = 1). Radiographically, there was 1 fracture nonunion. All unrevised MFT stems were radiographically well fixed. Subsidence of ≥5 mm occurred in 11%, but all implants were stable at the most recent follow-up. The mean HHS was 75 at 2 years (n = 71).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large series of 171 Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with MFT stems, we found that such constructs were associated with a high rate of fracture healing and provided extremely reliable and durable implant fixation, with no revisions for aseptic loosening. Dislocation and PJI were the most common complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review

Background

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a major cause for surgical revision after hip arthroplasty with detrimental consequences for patients. The Vancouver classification has been traditionally used since its introduction in 1995. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was described in 2014, to widen the spectrum by aiming for a more comprehensive approach. The UCS also aimed to replace the Vancouver classification by expanding the idea of the Vancouver classification to the whole musculoskeletal apparatus. After introduction of the UCS, the question was raised, whether the UCS found its place in the field of analysing PFFs. Therefore, this systematic review was performed to investigate, the use of the UCS compared to the established Vancouver classification.

Methods

Medline was searched for reports published between 1 January 2016 and 31 November 2020, without language restriction. Included were original articles, irrespective of the level of evidence and case reports reporting on a PFF and using either the Vancouver or the UCS to classify the fractures. Excluded were reviews and systematic reviews.

Results

One hundred forty-six studies were included in the analysis. UCS has not been used in a single registry study, giving a pooled cohort size of 3299 patients, compared to 59,178 patients in studies using the Vancouver classification. Since 2016, one study using UCS was published in a top journal, compared to 37 studies using the Vancouver classification (p=0.29). During the study period, the number of yearly publications remained stagnant (p=0.899).

Conclusions

Despite valuable improvement and expansion of the latter UCS, to date, the Vancouver system clearly leads the field of classifying PFFs in the sense of the common use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w.

A Comparison of Risks and Benefits Regarding Hip Arthroplasty Fixation

Since the field-changing invention of noncemented hip arthroplasty fixation in the 1980s, noncemented fixation has been progressively replacing cemented fixation. However, analyses of fixation frequencies reveal new patterns in cement versus noncemented preferences. Although cementation is again gaining ground in the United States, noncemented models remain the dominant fixation mode, seen in more than 90% of all hip arthroplasties. This stark preference is likely driven by concerns regarding implant durability and patient safety. Although advances in surgical techniques, intensive perioperative care, and improved instrument have evolved in both methods, data from large arthroplasty registries reveal shifting risks in contemporary hip arthroplasty, calling the use of noncemented fixation into question. Varying risk profiles regarding sex, age, or health comorbidities and morphological and functional differences necessitate personalized risk assessments. Furthermore, certain patient populations, based on the literature and data from large registries, have superior outcomes from cemented hip arthroplasty techniques. Therefore, we wanted to critically evaluate the method of arthroplasty fixation in primary hip arthroplasties for unique patient populations.