Surgical treatment of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures

Predictors of outcomes after internal fixation of periprosthetic femoral hip fractures Subgroup analysis of the peri-implant and peri-prosthetic fractures Spanish registry (PIPPAS)

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors predisposing patients to poor outcomes after fixation of periprosthetic hip fractures around femoral stems.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre cohort study of fractures around a hip replacement stem managed by internal fixation. The primary outcome was one-year mortality, while secondary outcomes were local complications and healthcare burden-related outcomes (nursing facility utilization and hospital length of stay).

RESULTS

One-year mortality was 16.2%. Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score (OR=1.17; 95%CI=1.03-1.33)), Pfeiffer Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) score (OR=1.16; 1.06-1.28), prosthetic dysfunction (OR=1.90; 1.00-3.61), and postoperative medical complications (OR=1.97; 1.06-3.68) were predictors of mortality. Patients with prior prosthetic dysfunction, lower Pfeiffer SPMSQ scores, Vancouver A fractures, and fractures fixed only using cerclages were at higher risk of local complications, which occurred in 9.3% of cases. Medical (OR=1.81; 1.05-3.13) and local complications (OR=5.56; 2.42-3.13) emerged as consistent risk factors for new institutionalization. Average hospitalization time was 13.9±9.2 days. Each day of fixation delay led to an average 1.4-day increase in total hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Frail periprosthetic hip-fracture patients with poorer functional status, dysfunctional replacements, and postoperative complications are at increased risk of mortality. Postoperative complications are more common in patients with dysfunctional arthroplasties, Vancouver A fractures, and fixation using cerclages alone. Postoperative complications were the most consistent predictor of higher healthcare resource utilization.

[Concept for the treatment of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures]

Due to demographic changes and increased survival rates of total hip arthroplasties, the incidence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures is increasing. The current treatment concept requires accurate preoperative planning. Besides patient-related risk factors, fracture type, prosthesis stability, and bone quality influence whether osteosynthesis or a revision arthroplasty is required.

Retrospective survival analysis of the use of uncemented modular tapered stems for revision in periprosthetic Vancouver B-type fractures. Is instability a threat to survival?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Periprosthetic hip fractures show increasing incidence and complexity, representing a challenge for the surgeon. We aimed to evaluate the survival of uncemented modular tapered stems in the treatment of periprosthetic Vancouver B2 and B3 type fractures and review the main complications and factors associated with decreased survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients submitted to revision arthroplasty for treatment of periprosthetic femoral stem Vancouver B2 and B3 type fractures with an uncemented modular fluted tapered stem (MRP-Titan). Demographic and radiographic parameters were analyzed. The survival rate (free of reoperation) was calculated at 2- and 5-years using the Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included with a mean age of 73.5 years and a mean follow-up of 5 years. Arthroplasty survivorship at 2 years was 73.7% and at 5 years was 67.5% (mean 8.4 years; range 6.7-10.2). Survivorship was inferior in the patients with episodes of instability (mean 2.5 years; range 0-5.42) (p<0.001). At least one episode of instability occurred in 26.3% of patients and 60% of these patients had a femoral head size 32mm or lower. At least one episode of instability occurred in 71.4% of patients with a greater trochanter fracture (p=0.008). The consolidation rate was 90.6% and the mortality rate was 23.7%. In the group of patients that died, 55.6% were submitted to at least one revision surgery (p=0.044).

CONCLUSION

Survivorship of an uncemented modular stem (MRP-Titan) in revision for PHF is significantly reduced by episodes of instability.

Biomechanics of PHILOS plates in Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of PHILOS plates in the treatment of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) and to validate its biomechanical reliability via finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models. Methods: Ten males and eight females with Vancouver B1 PFF who underwent PHILOS plate fixation between September 2017 and January 2022 were selected. The average age was 72.61 ± 8.19 years, with a range of 57-86 years old. X-ray films were taken to assess the fracture healing situation around the femoral prosthesis as well as the position of the PHILOS plates and femoral prosthesis. Two different plates (the PHILOS plate and the Cable GTR plate) were used for fixation, and the differences in biomechanical stability of the two fixation methods were compared using finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models to validate the biomechanical dependability of the PHILOS plate. Results: All 18 cases were followed for at least 1 year, as a result. The average period of follow-up was 17 months, ranging from 12 to 36 months. At the most recent follow-up, Harris scores for the hip joints of patients ranged from 82 to 89, with an average score of 86. The X-rays revealed that all fractures surrounding the femoral prosthesis had healed and that there was no looseness in the femoral prosthesis. None of the PHILOS license plates had expired. All patients were able to perform full-load walking, and pain and claudication in affected limbs were significantly reduced. Finite element analysis and mechanical testing of the Synbone femoral model revealed that the fixation effect of the PHILOS group was superior to that of the Cable group; consequently, PHILOS plates can be used to effectively fix fractures around the proximal femoral prosthesis. Conclusion: PHILOS plates are initially used in the treatment of Vancouver B1 PFF, which may be a good choice due to their simpler operation, lower medical costs, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.

Fracture pattern and risk factors for reoperation after treatment of 156 periprosthetic fractures around an anatomic cemented hip stem

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Lubinus SP2 stem has been associated with a very low risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs). We aimed, primarily, to study the radiographic morphology of PPFFs close to a Lubinus SP2 stem. Secondarily, we analyzed whether higher reoperation rate was correlated to the revision method chosen or to the characteristics of the fracture and of the bone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 156 femoral fractures close to a Lubinus cemented stem. These fractures were treated in 40 hospitals in Sweden between 2006 and 2011 and were followed up until 2019. Data from the Swedish Arthroplasty Register was used. Medical records and radiographs were studied. The fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. The fracture location and anatomy were delineated. We also measured the remaining attachment index (RAI) and the canal thickness ratio.

RESULTS

Vancouver type C (n = 101) and spiral fractures (n = 67, 41 in Vancouver C and 26 in Vancouver B) were the most common fracture types. 4 fractures were avulsion of the greater trochanter. The remaining 51 fractures occurred around the stem (B1: 25, B2: 16, and B3: 10). B fractures were more commonly reoperated on (18 of 51, 35%) than type C fractures (11 of 101, 11%, P = 0.001). In most femurs with type B3 fracture, the fracture line covered an area only around the stem, but in all B1 and in 11 of 16 B2 fractures, it was extended even distal to the stem. ORIF instead of stem revision in B2 fractures, use of short stems or plates, and inadequate reduction of the fractures were risk factors for subsequent reoperations.

CONCLUSION

The higher reoperation rate in type B fractures, compared with fractures distal to the stem, could be caused by their higher degree of complexity and reduced capacity for healing in the region around the stem.

Subsidence in Centraliser Sign: A Novel Tool to Help Predict Early Subsidence in Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Around Polished Tapered Stems Treated With Internal Fixation

Background When treating periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) around polished taper slip stems (PTS), determining which patients can be successfully treated with internal fixation can be challenging. We have described the subsidence-in-centraliser (SINC) sign as a radiographic feature of PPF around PTS stems. We hypothesise that a positive SINC sign can help predict a poorer outcome for the fixation of these fractures. Patients and methods Retrospective identification of PPFs around cemented PTS with an appreciable centraliser on radiographs was conducted at a single centre. A positive SINC sign was defined as a post-injury radiograph demonstrating >50% reduction in the radiographic lucency representing the stem centraliser when compared to pre-injury films or complete obliteration of distal lucency when no pre-injury film was available. The primary outcome was the rate of subsequent stem subsidence on follow-up radiographs comparing SINC-positive and SINC-negative fractures, which were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Results Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 76.8 years, and the mean follow-up for all patients was 12.7 months. Thirty-five fractures were deemed SINC-positive, and 19 were SINC-negative. 17/17 (100%) SINC-positive fractures managed with fixation underwent further subsidence (mean 5.4 mm, SD 2.8). A positive SINC sign demonstrated a sensitivity of 90.5% and specificity of 100% for subsequent stem subsidence in fractures treated without revision. SINC positive fractures underwent significantly more subsidence compared with SINC negative fractures when fixed (5.4 mm vs. 0.28 mm, U = 6.50, p<0.001) at a mean follow-up of 12.7 months. The SINC sign demonstrated strong inter- (k=0.96) and intra-rater (k=0.86) reliability. Conclusion The SINC sign can serve as a useful adjunct in the decision to fix or revise PPF around PTS. A positive SINC sign may represent a cement mantle that cannot be reconstituted anatomically, leading to subsidence after treatment with ORIF.

Which Unified Classification System type B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished tapered stems should not be fixed?

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Periprosthetic fracture management of the proximal femur

The most common periprosthetic fractures occur around the hip. The most widely used classification is the Vancouver classification, and management requires careful planning and skill in both arthroplasty and fracture surgery. This article presents an overview of the diagnosis, classification, and management of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. This work represents a summary review from Latin American Society Members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association.

A cost analysis of treating postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip replacement surgery in a UK tertiary referral centre

AIM

This study aims to evaluate costs associated with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) treatment at a UK tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

This study included 128 consecutive PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014-19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by Patient Level Information and Costing Systems. Primary outcomes were median cost and margin. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, blood transfusion, critical care, 30-day readmission, 2-year local complication, 2-year systemic complication, 2-year reoperation and 30-day mortality rates. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Across the cohort, median cost was £15,644.00 (IQR £11,031.00-£22,255.00) and median loss was £3757.50 (£599.20-£8296.20). The highest costs were ward stay (£3994.00, IQR £1,765.00-£7,013.00), theatre utilisation (£2962.00, IQR £0.00-£4,286.00) and overheads (£1705.10, IQR £896.70-£2432.20). Cost (£17,455.00 [IQR, £13,194.00-£23,308.00] versus £7697.00 [IQR £3871.00-£10,847.00], p<0.001) and loss (£4890.00 [IQR £1308.00-£10,009.00] versus £1882.00 [IQR £313.00-£3851.00], p = 0.02) were greater in the operative versus the nonoperative group. There was no difference in cost (£17,634.00 [IQR £12,965.00-£22,958.00] versus £17,399.00 [IQR £13,394.00-£23,404.00], p = 0.98) or loss (£5374.00 [IQR £1950.00-£10,143.00] versus £3860.00 [IQR -£95.50-£7601.00], p = 0.21) between the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and revision groups. More patients required blood transfusion in the operative versus the nonoperative group (17 [17.9%] versus 0 [0.0%], p = 0.009). There was no difference in any clinical outcome between the ORIF and revision groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement from NHS tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce hospital costs. Cost should not be used to decide between ORIF and revision surgery.

A multicentre comparative analysis of fixation versus revision surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with a cemented polished taper-slip femoral component

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%).

CONCLUSION

Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124-134.

Mortality and clinical outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures : a multicentre retrospective study

AIMS

The objectives of this study were to investigate the patient characteristics and mortality of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) subgroups divided into two groups according to femoral component stability and to compare postoperative clinical outcomes according to treatment in Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures.

METHODS

A total of 126 Vancouver type B fractures were analyzed from 2010 to 2019 in 11 associated centres' database (named TRON). We divided the patients into two Vancouver type B subtypes according to implant stability. Patient demographics and functional scores were assessed in the Vancouver type B subtypes. We estimated the mortality according to various patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between the open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty (revision) groups in patients with unstable subtype.

RESULTS

The one-year mortality rate of the stable and unstable subtype of Vancouver type B was 9.4% and 16.4%. Patient demographic factors, including residential status and pre-injury mobility were associated with mortality. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and Revision in either Vancouver B subtype. Patients treated with revision had significantly higher Parker Mobility Score (PMS) values (5.48 vs 3.43; p = 0.00461) and a significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) values (1.06 vs 1.94; p = 0.0399) for pain than ORIF in the unstable subtype.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with Vancouver type B fractures, frail patients, such as those with worse scores for residential status and pre-injury mobility, had a high mortality rate. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with ORIF and those treated with revision. However, in the unstable subtype, the PMS and VAS values at the final follow-up examination were significantly better in patients who received revision. Based on postoperative activities of daily life, we therefore recommend evision in instances when either treatment option is feasible.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):38-46.

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: results of an online survey of the European Hip Society

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both trauma and adult reconstruction surgeons or combined teams treat these fractures following management algorithms. The aim of this study is to investigate the current treatment of PPF by members of the European Hip Society (EHS).

METHODS

An online survey of the members of the European Hip Society (EHS) was conducted. 20 cases of periprosthetic fracture were presented and surgeons were asked to answer questions regarding classification, treatment and postoperative treatment protocol.

RESULTS

A total of 132 (130 male; 2 female) EHS members responded. Mean years in surgical practice was 18.8 (min. 1 year; max. 50 years). The preferred surgical method was combined open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (30.3%) for AG fractures, ORIF with cables (30.4%) for AL fractures, combined ORIF (cable and plate) for B1 fractures (49.2%), stem revision with cables for B2 fractures (73.1%), stem revision with cables for B3 (55.9%) fractures and combined ORIF (cable and plate: 55.5%) for C fractures. Surprisingly, 10.8% suggested various stem revision techniques for B1 and 17.4% for C fractures. Strong variations were observed regarding postoperative weight-bearing protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong consensus was found for the choice of conservative or surgical treatment of the different PPF types according to the Vancouver Classification. Various stem revision techniques were the preferred surgical techniques for Vancouver B2 (91.2%) and B3 (88.6%) fractures. However, for postoperative weight-bearing, when the ORIF technique was used, a significant variation of protocols was found.

Post-operative peri-prosthetic fracture rates following the use of cemented polished taper-slip stems for primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Peri-prosthetic fractures (PPFs) are a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) associated with significant morbidity, mortality and re-operation similar to the rates seen following femoral neck fractures. When exploring the PPF rates around cemented stems, many studies combine the results of composite beam and taper-slip stems despite their different philosophies. This review looks specifically at PPFs with the use of cemented stems of the taper-slip philosophy to evaluate the demographics, PPF rate and fracture patterns in this patient cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of Embase, Medline and CINAHL databases was performed to seek studies involving the use of cemented, polished, taper-slip stems, reporting on a rate of post-operative PPF and not involving patient cohorts that were exclusively hip fracture or revision arthroplasty.

RESULTS

27 studies reported on 505 PPFs with an average time from primary operation to PPF of 71.2 months (2-301 months). The average age of patients who sustained PPFs was 70.6 years (53.5-82 years) and the majority were female (64.2%). The Vancouver B2 fracture type was most common (39.5%). Open reduction and internal fixation represented the management of choice in 61.2% of PPFs. There was a re-operation rate of 11.4%.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests an association with being older and female, and a greater risk of PPFs secondary to low energy falls in cemented polished taper-slip stems.

Surgical outcomes of dual-plate fixation for periprosthetic femur fractures around a stable hip arthroplasty stem

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures is increasing. Multiple treatment methods exist to treat fractures surrounding stable hip arthroplasty implants including locking plate fixation, cable fixation, allograft augmentation, and revision arthroplasty. No consensus regarding optimal treatment has been reached, and significant complications remain. Recently, biomechanical studies have demonstrated the benefits of orthogonal dual-plate fixation, but little clinical data exist. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of dual-plated periprosthetic femur fractures around stable hip stems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following hip arthroplasty with a stable femoral stem treated with dual-plate fixation were identified through chart review at a single institution. Fracture classification, fixation characteristics, radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes and complications including re-operation were recorded.

RESULTS

Over a 12-year period, 31 patients (mean age 77 years at surgery, range 48-94) underwent dual plating by three traumatologists for implant-stable periprosthetic femur fractures surrounding a hip arthroplasty stem. There were 27 Vancouver B1-type and 9 inter-prosthetic fractures. Average follow-up was 2 years. Of the 26 patients with minimum 6-month follow-up, 24 (92%) united after index surgery (mean time to union 6.0 months, range 1.5-14.0). Mean time to full weight-bearing post-operatively was 2.6 months (range 1.5-4.0 months). Two patients required secondary surgery to address nonunion.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual-plating achieved high union rates with an acceptable complication profile for the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures surrounding a stable hip arthroplasty stem. Our preferred fixation construct involves a lateral plate spanning the entire femur secured with non-locking bicortical screws supplemented with an anteriorly based reconstruction plate. Additional prospective research is required to confirm the results of this study.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures around the original cemented polished triple-tapered C-stem femoral implant: a consecutive series of 500 primary total hip arthroplasties with an average follow-up of 15 years

INTRODUCTION

The true incidence of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) around cemented polished taper-slip implants remains largely unknown. Registries usually only capture PFFs that result in revision, missing those managed non-operatively or treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). This study reports the long-term rate of PFF with the original triple-tapered C-stem femoral implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective review of a consecutive series of 500 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed at a single centre between March 2000 and December 2005, with average follow-up of 15 years (12-19 years).

RESULTS

There were 500 consecutive THAs in 455 patients. Seven PFFs (1.4%) occurred in seven patients at an average of 7.9 years (range 2-11.5) from the primary arthroplasty. Five PFFs were managed by ORIF, one Vancouver B3 fracture was revised for a loose implant and one patient was treated non-operatively. Average age at primary operation was 74 years (67-87) and BMI averaged 27.3 (22-31). There was no typical fracture pattern and no statistically significant associations with patient demographics (age, gender, BMI, diagnosis) or prosthetic details (size, offset, alignment, cement mantle, subsidence). Survivorship to the occurrence of PFF was 99% (97.3-99.6%) at 10 years and 97.8% (95.5-99.0%) at 15.

CONCLUSION

A PFF rate of 1.4% at an average follow-up of 15 years represents the true incidence of PFF with the use of the original triple-tapered C-Stem femoral implant, similar to that of published Exeter series (1.85%) but lower than the CPT (3.3%).

Management and outcomes of femoral periprosthetic fractures at the hip : data from the characteristics, outcomes and management of periprosthetic fracture service evaluation (COMPOSE) cohort study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe the management and associated outcomes of patients sustaining a femoral hip periprosthetic fracture (PPF) in the UK population.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including adult patients who presented to 27 NHS hospitals with 539 new PPFs between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Data collected included: management strategy (operative and nonoperative), length of stay, discharge destination, and details of post-treatment outcomes (reoperation, readmission, and 30-day and 12-month mortality). Descriptive analysis by fracture type was performed, and predictors of PPF management and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

In all, 417 fractures (77%) were managed operatively and 122 (23%) conservatively. The median time to surgery was four days (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 7). Of those undergoing surgery, 246 (59%) underwent revision and/or fixation and 169 (41%) fixation alone. The surgical strategy used differed by Unified Classification System for PPF type, with the highest rate of revision in B2/B3 fractures (both 77%, 176/228 and 24/31, respectively) and the highest rate of fixation alone in B1- (55/78; 71%) and C-type (49/65; 75%) fractures. Cemented stem fixation (odds ratio (OR) 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 4.99); p = 0.002) and B2/B3 fracture type (OR 7.56 (95% CI 4.14 to 13.78); p < 0.001) were predictors of operative management. The median length of stay was 15 days (IQR 9 to 23), 12-month reoperation rate was 5.6% (n = 30), and 30-day readmission rate was 8.4% (n = 45). The 30-day and 12-month mortality rates were 5.2% (n = 28) and 21.0% (n = 113). Nonoperative treatment, older age, male sex, admission from residential or nursing care, and sustaining the PPF around a revision prosthesis were significant predictors of an increased 12-month mortality.

CONCLUSION

Femoral hip PPFs have mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates comparable with hip fracture patients. However, they have a longer wait for surgery, and surgical treatment is more complex. There is a need to create a national framework for data collection for this heterogeneous group of patients in order to understand the outcomes of different approaches to treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):997-1008 .

Treatment Algorithm of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracturens

Introduction. The ever-expanding indications for total hip arthroplasty are leading to more implants being placed in younger as well as in older patients with high functional demand. Also, prolonged life expectancy is contributing to an overall increment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. The Vancouver classification has been the most used for guiding the surgeon choice since its proposal in 1995. Fractures occurring over a hip femoral implant can be divided into intra-operative and post-operative PFFs, and their treatment depends on factors that may severely affect the outcome: level of fracture, implant stability, quality of bone stock, patients’ functional demand, age and comorbidities, and surgeon expertise. There are many different treatment techniques available which include osteosynthesis and revision surgery or a combination of both. The goals of surgical treatment are patients’ early mobilization, restoration of anatomical alignment and length with a stable prosthesis and maintenance of bone stock. Significance. The aim of this review is to describe the state-of-the-art treatment and outcomes in the management of PFFs. We performed a systematic literature review of studies reporting on the management of PFFs around hip stems and inter-prosthetic fractures identifying 45 manuscripts eligible for the analysis. Conclusions. PFFs present peculiar characteristic that must be considered and special features that must be addressed. Their management is complex due to the extreme variability of stem designs, the possibility of having cemented or uncemented stems, the difficulty in identifying the “real” level of the fracture and the actual stability of the stem. As a result, the definition of a standardized treatment is unlikely, thereby high expertise is fundamental for the surgical management of PPFs, so this kind of fractures should be treated only in specialized centres with both high volume of revision joint arthroplasty and trauma surgery.

Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Introduction

Periprosthetic femoral fracture around hip arthroplasty are growing in the world, nevertheless management and treatment options for fractures “around the stem” are still debated due to lack of high-level studies.

Materials and method

A 85-item survey were fill out by 40 Italian Orthopedic Surgeon member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia) and AIR (Associazione Italiana Riprotesizzazione) to assess their current opinion in the management of type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.

Results

Vancouver/UCS fracture classification showed a good interobserver agreement (k value = .76). ORIF were the treatment of choice for UCS type B1 fractures (100%), revision stem for B2 (85%) and B3 (100%). Locked plates were preferred to cable plate and cerclage without a plate for B1 fractures (50% vs 40% vs 10%); revision with modular stem was preferred to monoblock stem for B2 fractures (50% vs 35%) and B3 (75% vs 15%). Responders tended to postpone at 1-month weight-bearing in patients with B1 fractures. Regarding postoperative pharmacological treatment there was absolute lack of consensus.

Discussion

The primary finding of our survey confirmed the preference of ORIF for B1 fractures and stem revision for B2 and B3 fractures. However, there is no definitive operative technique for all UCS B fractures. Surgeons tended to favor locked plating over cable plating, although only slightly. This general lack of consensus coincides with the inconclusive evidence that currently exists in the literature, which demonstrates both favorable and unfavorable outcomes for both techniques

Conclusions

The absence of complete homogeneity among participants showed the need for prospective randomized studies to set up stronger guidelines for classification, management, surgical treatment, rehabilitation, and pharmacological support of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

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.

The use of Nottingham Hip Fracture score as a predictor of 1-year mortality risk for periprosthetic hip fractures

AIMS

The primary aim was to determine if the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) could be used to stratify 1-year mortality risk amongst periprosthetic hip fracture patients. The secondary aim was to identify 1year mortality rates amongst surgically managed periprosthetic hip fractures.

METHODS

Our electronic fracture database was interrogated for all Vancouver B or C periprosthetic fractures between September 2009 to April 2019; 83 patients were identified. All available data was then collected from radiographic, electronic and paper notes. The NHFS was retrospectively calculated for each patient. Statistical analysis was performed to identify factors significantly affecting 12month mortality using Akaike's information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), binomial logistic regression was performed using each variable; the p-values presented are for the coefficients of the regressor.

RESULTS

Periprosthetic fractures have a 1year mortality risk of 26.5%, 30 day mortality was 4.82%. The NHFS was found to be highly predictive of 1-year mortality amongst this patient cohort (p = 0.0001). We find that each unit increase in the NHFS is correlated with a 2.7times increase in mortality rate. There was no evidence that time lag from presentation to surgery led to an increased mortality (p = 0.455).

CONCLUSION

The NHFS can be used to stratify the 1-year mortality risk amongst patients who have periprosthetic hip fracture; this is a new finding not previously published to our knowledge. Given that time to surgery does not correlate with mortality, patients should be risk stratified on admission with NHFS. Time is then available to conduct a multi-disciplinary approach to optimize the patient, personnel and equipment. The introduction of a parallel multidisciplinary pathway to neck of femur fractures is long overdue and must be expedited.

Management of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures, Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze the current evidence for the use of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) constructs compared with conventional revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) for the management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was conducted. Prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. No limitation was placed on publication date, with only articles printed in English eligible.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were retrospective studies comparing ORIF and rTHA for the management of Vancouver B2 PFFs.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was the overall complication rate. Other outcomes included as rate of dislocation, revision operation, refracture, infection, nonunion, and subsidence/loosening. Twenty-four studies were included totaling 1621 patients, of which 331 were treated with ORIF and 1280 with rTHA.

CONCLUSION

The 1621 patients included comprised a mixture of different fracture patterns, prostheses, and patient comorbidities. The overall complication rate for ORIF was 24% versus 18% for rTHA (P = 0.13). The results demonstrate that rTHA has a similar revision rate to ORIF in PFFs with a loose femoral component and adequate bone stock. ORIF was superior to rTHA in prevention of postoperative dislocation; however, there was no difference between other complications. This review suggests a potential role of both ORIF and rTHA in the management of Vancouver B2 PFFs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Combined Surgical and Medical Treatment for Vancouver B1 and C Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proposal of a Therapeutic Algorithm While Retaining the Original Stable Stem

INTRODUCTION

There is lack of consensus regarding best operative fixation strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around a stable stem. Evidence exists that some patterns of fracture around a stable stem are better treated with revision surgery than with standard fixation. Anyway, a more aggressive surgical procedure together with medical treatment could allow for stem retention, and reduced risk of nonunion/hardware failure, even in these cases.

SIGNIFICANCE

This paper is placed in a broader context of lack of studies on the matter, and its aim is to shed some light on the management of PFFs around a stable stem, when peculiar mechanical and biological aspects are present.

RESULTS

Based on our casuistry in the treatment of nonunions after PFF successfully treated with original stem retention, and on review of Literature about risk factors for fixation failure, an algorithm is proposed that can guide in choosing the ideal surgical technique even for first-time PFFs with a stable stem, without resorting to revision. Mechanical (major and minor) and biological (local and systemic) factors that may influence fracture healing, leading to nonunion and hardware failure, and subsequent need for re-operation, are considered. The proposed surgical technique consists of rigid fixation with absolute stability (using a plate and structural allograft) plus local biological support (structural allograft and autologous bone marrow concentrate over a platelet-rich plasma-based scaffold) at fracture site. Systemic anabolic treatment (Teriparatide) is also administered in the post-operative period.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical factors are not the only issues to be considered when choosing the surgical approach to PFFs over a stable stem. Systemic and local biological conditions should be taken into account, as well. A therapeutic algorithm is proposed, given the prosthetic stem to be stable, considering mechanical and biological criteria.

Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Vancouver Type-B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

»

Revision arthroplasty (RA) continues to be considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been associated with satisfactory outcomes. Thus, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the optimal surgical strategy for the treatment of these fractures.

»

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no significant differences in clinical and radiographic outcome were observed between ORIF and RA in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

»

ORIF of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures was associated with higher revision and reoperation rates than those after RA.

»

Compared with RA, a significantly higher rate of subsidence was found in the ORIF group in Vancouver type-B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures whereas no significant difference in terms of loosening was observed.

»

In the comparison of RA and ORIF for the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures, the percentage of patients achieving full weight-bearing did not differ significantly.

»

Mortality rates did not differ between RA and ORIF in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures.

»

Overall complication rates did not differ between RA and ORIF in the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 fractures.

»

We found a high heterogeneity in applied surgical and fixation techniques in the ORIF group.

Reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip stems

AIMS

This aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System (UCS) for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) stems.

METHODS

Radiographs of 71 patients with a PFF admitted consecutively at two centres between 25 February 2012 and 19 May 2020 were collated by an independent investigator. Six observers (three hip consultants and three trainees) were familiarized with the UCS. Each PFF was classified on two separate occasions, with a mean time between assessments of 22.7 days (16 to 29). Interobserver reliability for more than two observers was assessed using percentage agreement and Fleiss' kappa statistic. Intraobserver reliability between two observers was calculated with Cohen kappa statistic. Validity was tested on surgically managed UCS type B PFFs where stem stability was documented in operation notes (n = 50). Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa statistic between radiological assessment and intraoperative findings. Kappa statistics were interpreted using Landis and Koch criteria. All six observers were blinded to operation notes and postoperative radiographs.

RESULTS

Interobserver reliability percentage agreement was 58.5% and the overall kappa value was 0.442 (moderate agreement). Lowest kappa values were seen for type B fractures (0.095 to 0.360). The mean intraobserver reliability kappa value was 0.672 (0.447 to 0.867), indicating substantial agreement. Validity percentage agreement was 65.7% and the mean kappa value was 0.300 (0.160 to 0.4400) indicating only fair agreement.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the UCS is unsatisfactory for the classification of PFFs around PTS stems, and that it has considerably lower reliability and validity than previously described for other stem types. Radiological PTS stem loosening in the presence of PFF is poorly defined and formal intraoperative testing of stem stability is recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1339-1344.

Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures involving the Exeter cemented stem

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study assessed 152 operatively managed consecutive unilateral Vancouver B fractures involving Exeter stems; 130 were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and 22 with revision arthroplasty. Mean follow-up was 6.5 years (SD 2.6; 3.2 to 12.1). The primary outcome measure was revision of at least one component. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for revision following ORIF. Secondary outcomes included any reoperation, complications, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Fractures (B1 n = 74 (49%); B2 n = 50 (33%); and B3 n = 28 (18%)) occurred at median of 4.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.2 to 9.2) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 138) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 14). Rates of revision and reoperation were significantly higher following revision arthroplasty compared to ORIF for B2 (p = 0.001) and B3 fractures (p = 0.050). Five-year survival was significantly better following ORIF: 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4% to 97.4%) versus 63% (95% CI 41.7% to 83.3%), p < 0.001. ORIF was associated with reduced blood transfusion requirement and reoperations, but there were no differences in medical complications, hospital stay, or mortality between surgical groups. No independent predictors of revision following ORIF were identified: where the bone-cement interface was intact, fixation of B2 or B3 fractures was not associated with an increased risk of revision.

CONCLUSION

When the bone-cement interface was intact and the fracture was anatomically reducible, all Vancouver B fractures around Exeter stems could be managed with fixation as opposed to revision arthroplasty. Fixation was associated with reduced need for blood transfusion and lower risk of revision surgery compared with revision arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):309-320.

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

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to evaluate the mortality and the outcomes of femoral revision in periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) using a titanium modular fluted tapered stem.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed femoral revisions performed for PFF with a titanium modular fluted tapered stem in 25 patients. The average age was 74.32 years. In 21 patients the type of fracture was Vancouver B2 and type B3 in 4 cases. The mean follow-up was 29.16 (0.83-104.1) months SD ± 29.49.

RESULTS

The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 8% and 12% respectively. The mean value of the Charlson Comorbidity Index was 4.8 and the mean value of ASA score was 2.4. The average time to surgery from admittance was 5.45 days with 20% of patients operated on within 48 hours. A significant correlation was found between ASA score and mortality. The mean HHS was 76 points; good-excellent results were recorded in 56% of patients. 72% had no pain and 28% had slight pain (VAS 1-3). 52% of patients were able to walk without pain, limp or aids. The mean implant subsidence was 1.57 mm and superior to 5 mm in 2 cases. As complications we recorded 4 implant dislocations (16%) and 2 infections. Reoperation rate was 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem in patients with periprosthetic fractures results in good clinical and radiological outcomes. However, mortality remains high and, despite the modularity design, dislocation is the most frequent complication.

Contribution of the remaining attachment index in the management of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture

INTRODUCTION

Implant fixation assessment following Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture is a major decision factor for internal fixation and/or implant revision. The main aim of the present study was to assess the correlation between radiographic Remaining Attachment Index (RAI) and risk of implant loosening at last follow-up following internal fixation of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A multicentre retrospective study included 50 patients with Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture with uncemented femoral stem between 2013 and 2019. Preoperative radiographs were analysed independently by 2 senior orthopedic surgeons, distinguishing 2 groups: RAI>2/3 versus<2/3. Postoperative and last follow-up radiographs were then screened for signs of complete femoral component loosening.

RESULTS

Median age was 89 years (range: 36-99 years). Two RAI>2/3 patients showed implant loosening (8%) versus 9 RAI<2/3 patients (36%), disclosing a significant correlation between early loosening and RAI<2/3 (p=0.005). Interobserver agreement for both radiographic RAI and radiographic loosening assessment at last follow-up was 98% with kappa correlation coefficient 0.96 [range: 0.88-1].

CONCLUSION

Remaining Attachment Index<2/3 in Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture was a risk factor for early implant loosening after isolated internal fixation. In these often frail elderly patients, first-line implant exchange is to be considered in the light of the risk/benefit ratio. The present results confirm the need for rigorous preoperative radiographic work-up of the remaining attachment area in Vancouver B1 fracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden.

A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies.

Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately.

Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems.

Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003

Treatment and outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures

Aims

Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are challenging complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and some treatment controversies remain. The objectives of this study were: to evaluate the short-to-mid-term clinical outcomes after treatment of Vancouver type B PFF and to compare postoperative outcome in subgroups according to classifications and treatments; to report the clinical outcomes after conservative treatment; and to identify risk factors for postoperative complications in Vancouver type B PFF.

Methods

A total of 97 consecutive PPFs (49 males and 48 females) were included with a mean age of 66 years (standard deviation (SD) 14.9). Of these, 86 patients were treated with surgery and 11 were treated conservatively. All living patients had a minimum two-year follow-up. Patient demographics details, fracture healing, functional scores, and complications were assessed. Clinical outcomes between internal fixation and revisions in patients with or without a stable femoral component were compared. Conservatively treated PPFs were evaluated in terms of mortality and healing status. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for complications.

Results

In surgically treated patients, all fractures united and nine complications were identified. The mean postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain was 1.5 (SD 1.3), mean Parker Mobility Score (PMS) was 6.5 (SD 2.4), and mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 79.4 (SD 16.2). Among type B2 and type B3 fractures, patients treated with internal fixation had significantly lower PMS (p = 0.032) and required a longer time to heal (p = 0.012). In conservatively treated patients, one-year mortality rate was 36.4% (4/11), and two patients ultimately progressed to surgery. Young age (p = 0.039) was found to be the only risk factor for complications.

Conclusion

The overall clinical outcome among Vancouver type B PFF was satisfactory. However, treatment with internal fixation in type B2 and B3 fractures had a significantly longer time to heal and lower mobility than revision cases. Conservative treatment was associated with high rates of early mortality and, in survivors, nonunion. This probably reflects our selection bias in undertaking surgical intervention. In our whole cohort, younger patient age was a risk factor for postoperative complications in Vancouver type B PFF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):293–300