Periprosthetic femoral fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA): a comparison between osteosynthesis and revision in a retrospective cohort study

The History of Classification Systems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Literature Review

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) present a significant clinical challenge due to their increasing incidence with an aging population and evolving surgical practices. Historically, classifications were primarily based on anatomical fracture location, the stability of the implant, and bone quality surrounding the implant. We critically analyzed 25 classification systems, highlighting the emergence and adaptations of key systems such as the Vancouver classification system (VCS) and the Unified classification system (UCS), which are lauded for their simplicity and effectiveness yet require further refinement. VCS, developed in 1995, categorizes fractures based on the site, implant stability, and bone quality, and remains widely used due to its robust applicability across different clinical settings. Introduced in 2014, UCS expands the VCS to encompass all periprosthetic fractures with additional fracture types, aiming for a universal application. Despite their widespread adoption, these systems exhibit shortcomings, including the incomplete inclusion of all PPFF types and the imprecise assessment of implant stability and surrounding bone loss. These gaps can result in misclassification and suboptimal treatment outcomes. This paper suggests the necessity for ongoing improvements in classification systems to include emerging fracture types and refined diagnostic criteria, ensuring that they remain relevant to contemporary orthopedic practices and continue to facilitate the precise tailoring of treatment to patient-specific circumstances. This comprehensive historical review serves as a foundation for future innovations in classification systems, ultimately aiming to standardize PPFF treatment and improve patient prognosis.

Planovalgus Foot Deformity in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated With Increased Risk of Falls, Implant-Related Complications, and Revisions: A Case-Control Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pes planus occurs due to the loss of the longitudinal arch of the foot, resulting in altered gait mechanics. This may lead to increased complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the effects that pes planus has on rates of falls, implant complications, fall-related injuries, and times to revision among THA patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a private insurance claims database was conducted from 2010 to 2021. Patients who had a diagnosis of congenital or acquired pes planus and cases of THA were identified. Patients undergoing THA with a diagnosis of pes planus were matched to control patients 1:5 based on age, sex, and comorbidity profiles. Logistic regression was utilized to assess for differences in complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 3,622 pes planus patients were matched to 18,094 control patients. The pes planus group had significantly higher rates of falls than the control group (6.93 versus 2.97%, OR [odds ratio]: 2.43; CI [confidence interval]: 2.09 to 2.84; P < .001). Pes planus patients also had significantly greater odds of dislocation (OR: 1.89; CI: 1.58 to 2.27; P < .001), mechanical loosening (OR: 2.43; CI: 2.09 to 2.84; P = .019), and periprosthetic fracture (OR: 2.43; CI: 2.09 to 2.84; P < .001). The pes planus group had significantly greater rates of proximal humerus fractures (P = .008), but no difference was seen in distal radius fractures (P = .102). The time to revision was significantly shorter in the pes planus group (190 versus 554 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pes planus in patients undergoing THA is associated with increased risk of complications and faster time to revision. These findings may allow orthopaedic surgeons to identify those patients at risk and allow for more educated patient counseling and operative planning.

Mid-term results of a cementless hip stem in femoral revision: how much diaphyseal press-fit do we need?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcome of a modular tapered revision hip stem after mid-term follow-up with a special focus on the length of the distal bicortical fixation of the cementless hip stem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Follow-up examination was carried out for all patients with implantation of the Prevision hip stem between 2014 and 2019 to collect demographic, functional, and radiographic data.

RESULTS

44 patients with stem in situ were examined, and 61 patients could be included in the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Oxford's hip score was 37.3 at the mean follow-up of 4.0 years. Two hip stem revisions were performed due to periprosthetic infection, which resulted in a hip stem survival rate of 96.7% (CI: 87.4-99.1%) at the final follow-up of 7.5 years. No aseptic hip stem revision was required. The length of bicortical distal fixation was in the interquartile range of 6.8 to 9.0 cm, which was associated with good bone healing and a low rate of subsidence (4.5%). Implant-associated complications were observed in 10 cases (21.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The modular revision hip stem provides promising results at medium-term follow-up, with satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes comparable to other modular revision hip stems. The presented length of bicortical distal fixation shows the practice of the study center and was associated with good implant survival, bone healing and radiological results.

REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04833634 registered on April 6, 2021.

Femoral revision in total hip arthroplasty using a cementless modular stem: clinical and radiological results with a 8-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Modular femoral components allow for patient-specific restoration of hip joint geometry and the reconstruction of extensive bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); however, potential problems of modular implants such as taper corrosion and the risk of implant fracture continue to be of concern. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of a cementless modular revision stem following revision surgery due to aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture and to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in these patients at mid-term follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, a consecutive cohort of 75 patients who underwent primary revision THA at our institution using a modular cementless stem design (MRP-TITAN stem) was retrospectively evaluated at a mean follow-up of 7.7 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses were performed with revision of the femoral component for any reason as the end point. The Harris-Hip Score, the UCLA Activity Score, the Forgotten Joint Score and the SF-12 Score were used for clinical assessment. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare pre- and postoperative clinical scores.

RESULTS

Overall stem survival with the endpoint stem re-revision for any reason was 85.4% at a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (range 2.4-14 years). Stem survival was 89.5% in the aseptic loosening group and 78.3% in the periprosthetic fracture group with no statistically significant difference between both groups (p = 0.107). One patient had to be revised due to taper fracture. PROMs improved significantly up to the latest follow-up, and radiographic evaluation showed full osseointegration of all stems in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision THA using a modular cementless titanium revision stem demonstrated adequate clinical and radiological results at mid- to long-term follow-up in this cohort. Cementless revision stems are a useful treatment option to restore the anatomy, especially in deformed hips and in complex revision hip arthroplasty. However, there are some significant disadvantages related to an increased risk of mechanical failure such as corrosion/fretting damage and implant fracture. Future high-quality prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm the supposed advantages.

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.

Influence of Scan Parameters of Single and Dual-Energy CT Protocols in Combination with Metal Artifact Suppression Algorithms for THA: An ex Vivo Study

BACKGROUND

Metal artifacts caused by hip arthroplasty stems limit the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of periprosthetic fractures or implant loosening. The aim of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the influence of different scan parameters and metal artifact algorithms on image quality in the presence of hip stems.

METHODS

Nine femoral stems, 6 uncemented and 3 cemented, that had been implanted in subjects during their lifetimes were exarticulated and investigated after death and anatomical body donation. Twelve CT protocols consisting of single-energy (SE) and single-source consecutive dual-energy (DE) scans with and without an iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm (iMAR; Siemens Healthineers) and/or monoenergetic reconstructions were compared. Streak and blooming artifacts as well as subjective image quality were evaluated for each protocol.

RESULTS

Metal artifact reduction with iMAR significantly reduced the streak artifacts in all investigated protocols (p = 0.001 to 0.01). The best subjective image quality was observed for the SE protocol with a tin filter and iMAR. The least streak artifacts were observed for monoenergetic reconstructions of 110, 160, and 190 keV with iMAR (standard deviation of the Hounsfield units: 151.1, 143.7, 144.4) as well as the SE protocol with a tin filter and iMAR (163.5). The smallest virtual growth was seen for the SE with a tin filter and without iMAR (4.40 mm) and the monoenergetic reconstruction of 190 keV without iMAR (4.67 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

This study strongly suggests that metal artifact reduction algorithms (e.g., iMAR) should be used in clinical practice for imaging of the bone-implant interface of prostheses with either an uncemented or cemented femoral stem. Among the iMAR protocols, the SE protocol with 140 kV and a tin filter produced the best subjective image quality. Furthermore, this protocol and DE monoenergetic reconstructions of 160 and 190 keV with iMAR achieved the lowest levels of streak and blooming artifacts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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