Is Stem Revision Necessary for Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures? Analysis of Osteosynthesis Results from 39 Cases

What's New in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) is one of the most common indications for reoperation following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS/RESULTS

This article provides a review of a symposium on PFF that was presented at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons 2023 annual meeting, including an overview of the Vancouver classification and its implications on treatment and subsequent complications, an updated approach to the management of intraoperative fractures, and finally, contemporary strategies for both osteosynthesis as well as revision arthroplasty for PFFs.

CONCLUSION

As the incidence of PPF continues to increase, arthroplasty and trauma surgeons must be prepared to address this challenging complication with a contemporary understanding of the treatment options and their outcomes.

Do All Postoperative Vancouver B2 Fractures Require Revision Arthroplasty With Cementless Stems?

Background

Management of periprosthetic fractures has been guided by the Vancouver classification, which recommends revision for fractures around a loose femoral implant (B2). New studies have challenged this approach, demonstrating acceptable outcomes with internal fixation. This study evaluates our experience with Vancouver B2 fractures, comparing internal fixation to femoral revision. We hypothesized that in select cases with cementless stems, internal fixation would provide acceptable results with reduced morbidity.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of periprosthetic hip fractures treated at our institution between 1 January 2012 and 4 November 2022. We excluded patients who did not have prior radiographs and evidence of stem subsidence, suggestive of a Vancouver B2 fracture. Thirteen patients were included in the analysis.

Results

Four patients (31%) underwent revision of the femoral component, 4 patients (31%) underwent plating, and 5 patients (38%) underwent internal fixation with cerclage cabling. The average operative duration was 158 minutes, 203 minutes, and 62 minutes for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively (P = .009). Blood loss was 463 cc, 510 cc, and 90 cc for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively (P = .036). Three patients in both the revision and plating cohorts each received a transfusion (75%), whereas no patients in the cabling cohort required a transfusion (P = .033). All patients demonstrated fracture healing on the postoperative radiographs. No patients required additional surgery during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated that Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures with intact lateral cortices may be treated with internal fixation with cerclage cabling with excellent results.

Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Several studies comparing osteosynthesis and stem revision in Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) have been published. This work aims to be the first systematic review and meta-analysis to include only studies involving statistical comparison between the two techniques.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception to October 2021 for studies involving a comparison between VB2 treated by osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty. The effect size (ES) was calculated using Cohen´s d index.

RESULTS

From 17 published studies selected, a total of 856 patients were recruited (363 osteosynthesis / 493 revision arthroplasty). The pooled ES estimates for the Parker mobility score were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.22-1.84; I2 = 87.7%) for ORIF surgery, and 0.54 (95% CI, - 0.10-1.17; I2 = 83%) for revision surgery. The pooled ES estimates for the operative time, reintervention, complications, hospital stay and needing for blood transfusion were significant lower in ORIF than in revision surgery. There were no differences in first-year mortality between groups. There was a higher proportion of ASA > 3 patients in the ORIF group.

CONCLUSION

Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty has a shorter operative time, less need for blood transfusion, fewer complications and reoperation rate and shorter hospital stay. Nonetheless, similar results were found for functional tests and first-year mortality. These results support the use of osteosynthesis in selected patients (low functional demand, multiple comorbidities, and high anesthetic risk).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Ethical Dilemmas with Regard to Elderly Patients with Hip Fracture: The Problem of Nonagenarians and Centenarians

Hip fracture is the most feared complication of osteoporosis, producing up to 30% mortality at the first year. With the aging of society, it is increasingly common to deal with ethical dilemmas that involve decision making in the elderly patient with a hip fracture. The objectives of the present work are to describe the main bioethical dilemmas in this group of patients and their relationship with surgical delay. We conducted a retrospective descriptive study that studied an elderly population admitted to a University Hospital with a diagnosis of hip fracture. In total, 415 patients were analyzed. The majority received surgical treatment, a correct application of the principles of justice, non-maleficence and beneficence is verified, but a possible violation of the principle of autonomy is confirmed. Based on the results of this study, the elderly population may somehow lose their principle of autonomy when they enter a hospital due to a hip fracture. On the other hand, the so-called ageism due to ignorance can influence the surgical delay and therefore the mortality of these patients.