Bone restoration after revision hip arthroplasty with femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems with cortical strut allografts

Impact of fixation method on femoral bone loss: a retrospective evaluation of stem loosening in first-time revision total hip arthroplasty among two hundred and fifty five patients

PURPOSE

Implant loosening represent the most common indication for stem revision in hip revision arthroplasty. This study compares femoral bone loss and the risk of initial revisions between cemented and uncemented loosened primary stems, investigating the impact of fixation method at primary implantation on femoral bone defects.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 255 patients who underwent their first revision for stem loosening from 2010 to 2022, receiving either cemented or uncemented stem implants. Femoral bone loss was preoperatively measured using the Paprosky classification through radiographic evaluations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated the survival probability of the original stem, and the hazard ratio assessed the relative risk of revision for uncemented versus cemented stems in the first postoperative year and the following two to ten years.

RESULTS

Cemented stems showed a higher prevalence of significant bone loss (type 3b and 4 defects: 32.39% vs. 2.72%, p < .001) compared to uncemented stems, which more commonly had type 1 and 2 defects (82.07% vs. 47.89%, p < .001). In our analysis of revision cases, primary uncemented stems demonstrated a 20% lower incidence of stem loosening in the first year post-implantation compared to cemented stems (HR 0.8; 95%-CI 0.3-2.0). However, the incidence in uncemented stems increased by 20% during the subsequent years two to ten (HR 1.2; 95%-CI 0.7-1.8). Septic loosening was more common in cemented stems (28.17% vs. 10.87% in uncemented stems, p = .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a modestly longer revision-free period for cemented stems within the first ten years post-implantation (p < .022).

CONCLUSION

During first-time revision, cemented stems show significantly larger femoral bone defects than uncemented stems. Septic stem loosening occurred 17.30% more in cemented stems.

Atypical Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Might be Considered a Distinct Subtype of Atypical Femoral Fracture: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The exact relationship among atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures (APFFs), typical periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs), and atypical femur fractures (AFFs) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of APFFs among PFFs and to identify the clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis that distinguish APFFs from typical PFFs and AFFs to further determine the relationship among these three fracture types.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we reviewed the clinical data of 117 consecutive patients who had PFFs after hip arthroplasty between January 2012 and December 2022 and further classified them into an APFF group and a typical PFF group according to the revised ASBMR diagnostic criteria for AFF. Moreover, patients who had subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in the same period and met the diagnostic criteria for AFF were recruited and classified into the AFF group. Demographic information, minor features of AFF, comorbidities, history of medication usage, management, and complications were collected and compared among patients with typical PFFs, APFFs, and AFFs.

RESULTS

Eleven PFFs were identified as APFFs, and the prevalence of APFFs among PFFs was 9.4%. Significant differences were found in generalized increase in cortical thickness (p = 0.019), prodromal symptoms (p < 0.001), and the incidence of bilateral fractures (p = 0.010) among the groups, where the incidences of these minor features in the APFF group and the AFF group were higher than those in the typical PFF group. Of note, the duration of fracture healing of APFFs was significantly longer than that of typical PFFs and AFFs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). In addition, the APFF group and the AFF group had higher proportions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.004 and p = 0.027, respectively), bisphosphonate (BP) usage (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively), and longer duration of BP usage (p = 0.003 and p = 0.007, respectively) than the typical PFF group. Furthermore, significant differences were found in management (p < 0.001) and complication rate (p = 0.020) among the groups, and the rate of complications in the APFF group and the AFF group was higher than that in the typical PFF group.

CONCLUSIONS

APFFs not only fulfilled the mandatory and major diagnostic criteria for AFF but also had many clinical characteristics, management and prognosis distinguishing them from typical PFFs but resembling AFFs; hence, the diagnostic criteria for AFF might be revised to incorporate APFF as a distinct subtype of the condition.

Open reduction and locked compression plate fixation, with or without allograft strut, for periprosthetic fractures in patients who had a well-fixed femoral stem: a retrospective study with an average 2-year follow-up

Background

The use of cortical strut allograft has not been determined for Vancouver type B1 or C fracture. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term efficacy of locking compression plating with or without cortical strut allograft in managing these types of fractures.

Methods

We retrospectively assessed 32 patients (17 males, 15 females; 23–88 years, mean: 67.2 years) with Vancouver type B1 or C fractures. Seventeen patients (Group A; B1 fractures in 15 hips, C fractures in 2 hips) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plates (group A). The other 15 patients (Group B; B1 in 14 hips, C in 1 hip) were fixed by locking compression plating combined with cortical strut allografting (group B). The fracture healing rate, healing time, complications and function were compared between these two groups.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 32.4 months (12 to 66), and the overall fracture union rate of the 32 patients was 96.9%. Group B had a higher fracture union rate than Group A, but the difference was not statistically significant. Group A had one case of nonunion of type B1 fracture and one case of malunion; the mean time to fracture healing was 5.3 months (3 to 9). In group B, all patients reached bony union without malunion, with a mean time of fracture healing of 5.1 months (3 to 8).

Conclusion

Treatment of Vancouver type B1 or C fractures by locking compression plating, with or without cortical strut allografting, resulted in similar union rates in these patients. This suggest that, the use of cortical strut allografting should be decided cautiously.

Minimum ten-year results in revision total hip arthroplasty using titanium fully porous long stem

PURPOSE

The fully porous long stem could be used for diaphyseal locking and achieve bypass fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study evaluated long-term results for fully porous long stems made of titanium alloy in revision THA.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2010, 45 consecutive femoral revisions were performed using fully porous long stems. Thirty-eight hips had complete clinical and radiographic data for a mean of 13.8 years (range, 10-16.7 years). Femoral bone loss was Paprosky type II in 14 hips, type IIIA in 18 hips, and type IIIB in six hips. Clinical results were analyzed using the Merle d'Aubigné and Postel scoring system. Femoral stress shielding was graded. Radiological loosening of the femoral component was evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with revision for any reason as the end-point.

RESULTS

Mean Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score improved significantly from 10.7 before revision to 14.5 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Third-degree stress shielding was found in seven hips, and fourth degree in 11 hips. Radiological femoral loosening occurred in one hip, which was revised. Another hip was revised for stem fracture. Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival rate was 94.7% at both ten and 15 years.

CONCLUSION

Although stress shielding is a concern with fully porous stems, this stem was useful in revision THA and provided satisfactory long-term results in hips with Paprosky types II, IIIA, and IIIB.

High Incidence of Irradiated Cortical Strut Allograft Resorption Following Revision of Femoral Stems

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of revision total hip arthroplasties using cementless stems and cortical strut allografts, graft resorption has not been explicitly studied.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2018, 40 femoral strut grafts were used in the revision of femoral stems of 36 patients (18 males and 18 females; average age, 51.9 ± 12.9 years). The mean follow-up was 78.9 ± 37.3 months. Failure was defined as revision surgery for any reason and subsidence of greater than 5 mm.

RESULTS

The survival rate of the stem without the need for revision at 5 years was 95% (mean graft survival time, 10.8 [95% CI, 9.414-12.234] years). Overall survival with graft resorption as the endpoint was 90% at 5 years (mean graft survival time, 8.8 [95% CI, 7.5-10.2] years). Survival with graft nonunion as the endpoint was 90% at 3 years (mean survival time, 11.7 [95% CI, 10.5-12.8] years).

CONCLUSION

The resorption rate increases proportionally to the follow-up duration and can be very severe in a high percentage of cases. Long-term multicenter studies are required to assess the effect of resorption on prosthesis longevity.