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

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.

Health status after periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures

Aims

Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are a major complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Health status after PFF is not specifically investigated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the health status pattern over two years after sustaining a PFF.

Methods

A cohort of patients with PFF after THA was derived from the Brabant Injury Outcomes Surveillance (BIOS) study. The BIOS study, a prospective, observational, multicentre follow-up cohort study, was conducted to obtain data by questionnaires pre-injury and at one week, and one, three, six, 12, and 24 months after trauma. Primary outcome measures were the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), the Health Utility Index 2 (HUI2), and the Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3). Secondary outcome measures were general measurements such as duration of hospital stay and mortality.

Results

A total of 70 patients with a PFF were included. EQ-5D utility scores were significantly lower on all timepoints except at six months' follow-up compared to pre-injury. EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) scores at one month's follow-up were significantly lower compared to pre-injury. The percentage of reported problems at two years was higher for all dimensions except anxiety/depression when compared to pre-injury. The mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.26 higher in males compared to females (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.42; p = 0.003). The mean EQ-VAS score for males was 8.9 points higher when compared to females over all timepoints (95% CI 1.2 to 16.7; p = 0.027). Mortality was 10% after two years' follow-up.

Conclusion

PFF patients are a frail population with substantial functional impairment at baseline. Post-injury, they have a significant and clinically relevant lower health status two years after trauma when compared to pre-injury. Health status improves the most between one and three months after injury. Two years after PFF, more patients experience problems in mobility, self-care, usual activities, and pain/discomfort than pre-injury.

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.

Surgical treatment of specific Unified Classification System B fractures: potentially destabilising lesser trochanter periprosthetic fractures

To investigate the clinical effects of specific Unified Classification System B (UCS B)-lesser trochanter periprosthetic fractures and determine whether they occur only with non-cemented stems. A retrospective analysis of 28 patients with specific UCS B2 fractures who underwent two surgical treatments, longer stem revision and internal fixation (LSRIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), was performed. The patients were assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and annually thereafter. Fracture healing, complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and the Short Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) quality of life score were assessed at each follow-up. At the time of the last follow-up, seven patients had been lost: three were lost to contact, two died, and two were hospitalised elsewhere and unavailable for follow-up. The remaining 21 patients were followed for an average of 49.3 ± 15.4 (range: 24-74.4) months. Their average fracture healing time was 13.5 ± 1.1 (12-15.4) weeks. Complications included three cases (10.71%) of thrombus, one (3.57%) of heart failure, and one (3.57%) of pulmonary infection. There were no revisions due to prosthesis loosening, subsidence, or infection. At the last follow-up, the HHS, SF-36 mental score, and SF-36 physical score were recorded, LSRIF vs. ORIF (82.9 ± 6.6 vs. 74.7 ± 3.9, p = 0.059; 50.9 ± 7.6 vs. 38 ± 1.4, p = 0.012, and 51.7 ± 8.4 vs. 39.7 ± 3.4, p = 0.032, respectively). Specific UCS B2 fractures mostly occur with non-cemented stems. LSRIF with cables is the main treatment, while ORIF is an option for those elderly in poor condition.

Periprosthetic fractures: an unrecognized osteoporosis crisis

Total joint replacement is common and increasing. Many of these patients have low bone mineral density preoperatively, and arthroplasty leads to bone loss. As falls are common before and after arthroplasty, it is unsurprising that periprosthetic fractures, defined as those associated with an orthopedic device, whether a joint replacement or other internal fixation devices, are not rare. These fractures engender morbidity and mortality comparable to osteoporosis-related hip fractures but remain largely unrecognized and untreated by osteoporosis/metabolic bone disease clinicians. Indeed, recent osteoporosis guidelines are silent regarding periprosthetic fractures. The purposes of this clinical review are to briefly describe the epidemiology of arthroplasty procedures and periprosthetic fractures, raise awareness that these fractures are osteoporosis-related, and suggest approaches likely to reduce their occurrence. Notably, bone health evaluation is essential following the occurrence of a periprosthetic fracture to reduce subsequent fracture risk. Importantly, in addition to such secondary fracture prevention, primary prevention, i.e., bone health assessment and optimization prior to elective orthopedic procedures, is appropriate.