A review of 202 periprosthetic fractures--stem revision and allograft improves outcome for type B fractures

What Are the Mortality, Infection, and Nonunion Rates After Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are a serious complication that put a high burden on patients. However, comprehensive analyses of their incidence, mortality, and complication rates based on large-registry data are scarce.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this large-database study, we asked: (1) What is the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients 65 years and older in the United States? (2) What are the rates of mortality, infection, and nonunion, and what factors are associated with these outcomes?

METHODS

In this retrospective, comparative, large-database study, periprosthetic femoral fractures occurring between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were identified from Medicare physician service records encompassing services rendered in medical offices, clinics, hospitals, emergency departments, skilled nursing facilities, and other healthcare institutions from approximately 2.5 million enrollees. These were grouped into proximal, distal, and shaft fractures after TKA and THA. We calculated the incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures by year. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated by dividing the incidence in 2019 by the incidence in 2010. The Kaplan-Meier method with Fine and Gray subdistribution adaptation was used to calculate the cumulative incidence rates of mortality, infection, and nonunion. Semiparametric Cox regression was applied with 23 measures as covariates to determine factors associated with these outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2019, the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures increased steeply (TKA for distal fractures: IRR 3.3 [95% CI 1 to 9]; p = 0.02; THA for proximal fractures: IRR 2.3 [95% CI 1 to 4]; p = 0.01). One-year mortality rates were 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) for distal fractures treated with THA, 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) for proximal fractures treated with THA, 22% (95% CI 19% to 26%) for shaft fractures treated with THA, 21% (95% CI 18% to 25%) for distal fractures treated with TKA , 22% (95% CI 17% to 28%) for proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 24% (95% CI 19% to 29%) for shaft fractures treated with TKA. The 5-year mortality rate was 63% (95% CI 54% to 70%) for distal fractures treated with THA, 57% (95% CI 54% to 62%) for proximal fractures treated with THA, 58% (95% CI 52% to 63%) for shaft fractures treated with THA, 57% (95% CI 52% to 62%) for distal fractures treated with TKA , 57% (95% CI 49% to 65%) for proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 57% (95% CI 49% to 64%) for shaft fractures treated with TKA. Age older than 75 years, male sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.32 to 1.67] after THA and HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.74] after TKA), cerebrovascular disease after THA, chronic kidney disease (HR 1.28 [95% CI 1.12 to 1.46] after THA and HR 1.50 [95% CI 1.24 to 1.82] after TKA), diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis were clinical risk factors for an increased risk of mortality. Within the first 2 years, fracture-related infections occurred in 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%) of patients who had distal fractures treated with THA, 5% [95% CI 5% to 6%]) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with THA, 6% (95% CI 5% to 7%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with THA, 6% (95% CI 5% to 7%) of patients who had distal fractures treated with TKA , 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with TKA. Nonunion or malunion occurred in 3% (95% CI 2% to 4%) of patients with distal fractures treated with THA, 1% (95% CI 1% to 2%) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with THA, 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with THA, 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) of those who had distal fractures treated with TKA, , 2% (95% CI 1% to 4%) of those who had proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 3% (95% CI 2% to 4%) of those who had shaft fractures treated with TKA.

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of periprosthetic fractures were observed during the investigated period. At 1 and 5 years after periprosthetic femur fracture, there was a substantial death rate in patients with Medicare. Conditions including cerebrovascular illness, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis are among the risk factors for increased mortality. After the surgical care of periprosthetic femur fractures, the rates of fracture-related infection and nonunion were high, resulting in a serious risk to affected patients. Patient well-being can be enhanced by an interdisciplinary team in geriatric traumatology and should be improved to lower the risk of postoperative death. Additionally, it is important to ensure that surgical measures to prevent fracture-related infections are followed diligently. Furthermore, there is a need to continue improving implants and surgical techniques to avoid often-fatal complications such as fracture-associated infections and nonunion, which should be addressed in further studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

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.

Osteosíntesis en fracturas femorales periprotésicas de cadera Vancouver tipos B1 y C. Análisis multicéntrico

Introducción: Nuestro objetivo fue analizar los resultados del tratamiento con osteosíntesis en pacientes con fracturas Vancouver tipos B1 y C, evaluar las complicaciones, las reintervenciones y la tasa de mortalidad en este grupo. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico, retrospectivo. Se estableció una base de datos que incluía a 53 pacientes con fracturas periprotésicas de fémur Vancouver tipos B1 y C tratadas con osteosíntesis, desde 2008 hasta 2021, en dos centros hospitalarios de alta complejidad. Resultados: La fijación proximal más utilizada fue con tornillos bicorticales más lazadas de alambre. El tipo de fractura según la clasificación de Vancouver se correlacionó con un valor significativo en el uso de tornillos de compresión interfragmentaria (p 0,001), con un total de 13 pacientes (24,52%), 9 en fracturas Vancouver tipo C. El tiempo de consolidación promedio fue de 4 meses, con un puntaje promedio del Harris Hip Score de 68. Doce pacientes (22,64%) tuvieron complicaciones: retraso de la consolidación (7 casos; 13,2%), falla de la osteosíntesis con trazo de fractura a nivel distal del tallo (un caso; 1,88%), una nueva osteosíntesis por falla a nivel del material de osteosíntesis (un caso; 1,88%) y tres fallecieron (5,66%). Conclusiones: El manejo de las fracturas femorales periprotésicas es un tema complejo y desafiante. El tratamiento con osteosíntesis constituye un método exitoso que requiere de la aplicación de principios actuales de técnicas mínimamente invasivas que, junto con una fijación proximal estable, mejoran las posibilidades de éxito.

Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty

There is currently a debate on whether all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures should be revised.

The aim of our work was to establish a decision-making algorithm that helps to decide whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision arthroplasty (RA) should be performed in these patients.

Relative indications in favour of ORIF are low-medium functional demand (Parker mobility score (PMS) <5), high anaesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) ≥ 3), many comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 5), 1 zone fractured (VB2.1), anatomical reconstruction possible, and no prior loosening (hip pain).

Relative indications in favour of RA are high functional demand (PMS ≥6), low anaesthetic risk (ASA< 3), few comorbidities (CCI<5), fracture ≥ 2 zones (VB2.2), comminuted fractures, and prior loosening (hip pain).

In cemented stems, those fractures with fully intact cement–bone interface, no stem subsidence into the cementraliser, cement mantle anatomically reducible, and some partial stem-cement attachment can be safely treated with ORIF.

Development of the Revision Hip Complexity Classification using a modified Delphi technique

Aims

The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks.

Methods

The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds.

Results

The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively.

Conclusion

The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431.

Clinical and radiographical outcome after surgical treatment of periprosthetic type B proximal femur fractures: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic fractures after hip prosthesis represent a constantly increasing clinical problem and a challenging complication to treat surgically. Among these, type B proximal femur fractures should be diagnosed correctly to be treated surgically. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the type of surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures.

METHODS

We examined the cases treated between January 2012 and February 2018, classifying them according to the U.C.S. AO/OTA. We evaluated the radiographic outcome according to the Beals and Tower criteria. Patients still alive were also re-evaluated according to the H.H.S. and the WOMAC score.

RESULTS

We treated 48 patients (12 men, 35 women, average age 81 years), divided into 24 type B1, 14 type B2 and 10 type B3 fractures. The overall consolidation rate was 95.4%, while the major complication (implant dislocation, pseudoarthrosis and deep infection) rate was 12.5%. Clinically, it was possible to reassess 34 patients with a mean follow-up of 38.4 months, an average HHS of 75.89 and a mean WOMAC score of 79.93.

CONCLUSIONS

Periprosthetic type B fractures are difficult to manage and require careful preoperative planning and appropriate intraoperative management. However, the overall clinical and radiographic result was satisfactory, although patients should still be aware of the risk of complications associated with this type of fracture.

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.

Periprosthetic Hip Fractures With a Loose Stem: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Stem Revision

BACKGROUND

It is recommended revision for periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) with a loose stem. However, several authors have argued that under certain conditions, this fracture could be treated using osteosynthesis. The aim is to compare stem revision versus internal fixation in the treatment of PPHF with a loose stem.

METHODS

All patients with PPHF with a loose stem treated by osteosynthesis and stem revision between January 2009 and January 2019 were included. We assessed hospital stay, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Charlson comorbidity index, surgery time, blood transfusion, complications, reoperation rate, first-year mortality, radiological, and functional results.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were included (40 osteosyntheses and 17 stem revision), with an average follow-up time of 3.1 years. Their mean age was 78.47 years (R 45-92). In the osteosynthesis group, fewer patients required blood transfusion (32.5% vs. 70.6%), surgical times were shorter (108 minutes vs. 169 minutes), and the cost was lower, both in terms of total cost (€14,239.07 vs. €21,498.45 and operating room cost (€5014.63 vs. €8203.34). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of complications, reoperation rate, or functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared with stem revision, osteosynthesis requires less surgery time, has a lower need for blood transfusions, and a reduced hospital cost. Stem revision remains the treatment of choice in PPHF with a loose stem, but in V-B2 fractures in elderly patients with low functional demand, high anesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists ≥3), and many comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index ≥5) in whom anatomic reconstruction is possible, osteosynthesis can be a viable option.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

Historical cohorts. Level III.

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.

Biomechanics of periprosthetic femur fractures and early weightbearing

PURPOSE

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures is expected to rise increase by 4.6% every 10 years between 2015 and 2060. There are few large series examining optimal fixation constructs or the influence of early ambulation on outcome. The purpose of this narrative review is to investigate the published biomechanical considerations for periprosthetic fracture fixation, with specific consideration of early postoperative weightbearing.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify fracture incidences, etiology, and current trends in weightbearing after fixation. Benefits of early weightbearing, current constructs, and biomechanics are reviewed.

RESULTS

The limited data available support medical benefits and increased union rates with early mobilization. Optimal fixation constructs are not agreed upon, but mechanical studies suggest that dual implant constructs can support physiologic weightbearing loads.

CONCLUSION

Further clinical trials are required to investigate fracture union and hardware complications in dual implant construct.

Periprosthetic hip fractures: an update into their management and clinical outcomes

The Vancouver classification is still a useful tool of communication and stratification of periprosthetic fractures, but besides the three parameters it considers, clinicians should also assess additional factors.

Combined advanced trauma and arthroplasty skills must be available in departments managing these complex injuries.

Preoperative confirmation of the THA (total hip arthroplasty) stability is sometimes challenging. The most reliable method remains intraoperative assessment during surgical exploration of the hip joint.

Certain B1 fractures will benefit from revision surgery, whilst some B2 fractures can be effectively managed with osteosynthesis, especially in frail patients.

Less invasive osteosynthesis, balanced plate–bone constructs, composite implant solutions, together with an appropriate reduction of the limb axis, rotation and length are critical for a successful fixation and uneventful fracture healing.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:75-92. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200050

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

Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hip arthroplasty (HA) is commonly performed to treat various hip pathologies. Its volume is expected to rise further due to the increasing age of the population. Complication rates are low; however, periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are a rare, albeit serious, complication with substantial economic impact. While current guidelines propose revision with long-stemmed prostheses for all Vancouver B2 and B3 PFF, some recent research papers suggest that open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) could lead to an equivalent outcome. Our aim was to summarize the evidence, elucidating under which circumstances ORIF leads to a favorable outcome after B2 and B3 PFF compared with revision surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on patients treated with ORIF and with stem revision after B2 and/or B3 fractures. Extracted information included initial pathology, stem fixation mechanism, bone quality and stem stability at the time of PFF, clinical outcomes, and mortality. Results of individual studies were summarized in a table in lieu of a quantitative data synthesis due to a lack of standardized information.

RESULTS

We identified 14 original research articles including both patients treated with ORIF and with stem revision after B2 and/or B3 PFF. Five studies included statistical comparisons, all were in favor of ORIF or indeterminate. The common lack of rigorous statistical analyses and significant methodological weaknesses made identification of outcome predictors impossible.

CONCLUSION

The choice of treatment modality for PFF depends on fracture, implant, and bone characteristics. Recent data show that successful outcome can be achieved without revising loose stems. ORIF may be a viable option if bone stock is adequate around uncemented or tapered polished stems with an intact cement mantle and the fracture geometry allows stable anatomic reconstruction. Conceptional considerations support this idea, but more data are needed to identify outcome predictors.

Surgical treatment of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures

Aims

We investigated patient characteristics and outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic fractures treated with femoral component revision and/or osteosynthesis.

Patients and Methods

The study utilized data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) and information from patient records. We included all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in Sweden since 1979, and undergoing further surgery due to Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fracture between 2001 and 2011. The primary outcome measure was any further reoperation between 2001 and 2013. Cross-referencing with the National Patient Register was performed in two stages, in order to identify all surgical procedures not recorded on the SHAR.

Results

Out of 1381 Vancouver type B fractures that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 257 underwent further reoperation by the end of 2013. Interprosthetic and Type B1 fractures had a higher risk for reoperation. For B1 fractures, the rate of reoperation did not differ (p = 0.322) after use of conventional (26%) or locking plate osteosynthesis (19%). No significant differences were observed between cemented, cementless monoblock, and cementless modular revision components for the treatment of type B2 and B3 fractures.

Conclusion

In this country-specific study, the choice of locking or conventional plates for the treatment of type B1, and cemented or cementless femoral components fixation for B2 and B3 fractures, had no significant influence on risk for reoperation. Interprosthetic fractures adversely affected the outcome of treatment of type B fractures. Differences in the patient characteristics of the compared groups were observed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1447–1458.

Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic fractures are becoming increasingly common, often leading to poor patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFx).

METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of the databases MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, from the earliest available date to December 2017. We included all clinical articles reporting more than 100 post-operative PPFFx around total hip arthroplasty (THA). Outcomes included demographics, fracture type, risk factors and time to fracture.

RESULTS

A total of 12 868 PPFFx were reported across 18 eligible studies; 64% occurred following primary THA and 36% occurred after revision THA, and 66% of all fractures were in females. Vancouver B2 fractures were the most common type (39%). We found the odds of sustaining a PPFFx is significantly lower after a primary THA compared to revision THA (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.40, P < 0.00001). The incidence of PPFFx is 2.96 per 1000 person-years following primary THA compared to 9.08 per 1000 person-years following revision THA (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.40). The time to fracture was 6.03 years following primary THA and 4.08 years following revision THA. Gender and cementation did not significantly affect the odds of fracture.

CONCLUSION

The odds of sustaining a PPFFx following revision THA is three times greater compared to primary THA. Other risk factors including gender and cementation did not affect the odds of fracture.

Incidence and demographics of 1751 surgically treated periprosthetic femoral fractures around a primary hip prosthesis

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF), treated surgically, have been recorded in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) since 1979. It is postulated that fractures treated with other methods other than stem revision have a lower registration rate, which may lead to incomplete registry data and thus, inaccurate information. We collected all PPFFs surgically treated in Sweden between 2001 and 2011 with the purpose of studying the annual incidence, demographics and distribution of fracture types with regard to type of fixation.

METHODS

Data was linked between the SHAR and the National Patient Register (NPR) in order to detect even those PPFFs not reported to the SHAR. Fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification system, based on information collected from the medical charts. This procedure was validated with observer variation analysis compared to fracture classification based on radiographs. In total 1751 first-time PPFFs around primary conventional stems were included.

RESULTS

The incidence of PPFF increased from about 1.0 per 1000 primary THRs to 1.4. Vancouver type C fractures (37% of all fractures) were more common than previously reported, and more common in cemented than in uncemented stems. The 3 most common stem designs involved were Exeter polished, Lubinus SPII, and Charnley (66.3% of all stems), partly reflecting their occurrence in the Swedish THR population.

DISCUSSION

The incidence of PPFFs has increased in Sweden during the period 2001 to 2011. The improved reporting of type C fractures, after data-linking, revealed an almost 4 times higher incidence compared to previous register studies in Sweden.

Atypical periprosthetic femoral fracture: a case report

We report an 82-year-old woman who underwent fixation with a long-spanning cable-plate for a bisphosphonate-induced Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture. Non-union and breakage of the plate occurred at 16 months and necessitated revision surgery using a long-stem femoral prosthesis augmented with a cable-plate construct. Bone union was achieved eventually after 10 months.

Periprosthetic fracture fixation in osteoporotic bone

Fixation techniques of periprosthetic fractures are far from ideal although the number of this entity is rising. The presence of an intramedullary implant generates its own fracture characteristics since stiffness is altered along the bone shaft and certain implant combinations affect load resistance of the bone. Influencing factors are cement fixation of the implant, intramedullary locking and extramedullary or intramedullary localization of the implant and the cortical thickness of the surrounding bone. Cerclage wires are ideally suited to fix radially displaced fragments around an intramedullary implant but they are susceptible to axial and torsional load. Screws should be added if these forces have to be neutralized. Stability of the screw fixation itself can be enhanced by embracement configuration around the intramedullary implant. Poor bone stock quality, often being present in metaphyseal areas limits screw fixation. Cement augmentation is an attractive option in this field to enhance screw purchase.

The influence of the operation technique and implant used in the treatment of periprosthetic hip and interprosthetic femur fractures: a systematic literature review of 1571 cases

INTRODUCTION

A systematic literature review on periprosthetic/interprosthetic fracture fixation after hip arthroplasties was performed to summarize available clinical data. Operation techniques and implants used were evaluated as possible risk factors for outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched. Articles describing patients with postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures sustained around a hip arthroplasty and with interprosthetic fractures treated with plates, nails, screws and/or cerclage were included. Considered articles were from 2000 or newer. Eligible abstracts were screened by two independent persons and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Absolute numbers of complications and/or reoperation events along with their corresponding rates were calculated according to operation technique and type of implant. Relative risks of having a complication and/or a reoperation according to the operation technique and the type of implant used were estimated.

RESULTS

Available data from 49 prospective and retrospective studies were analyzed. Of 1574 fractures, 81.7 % were treated with plating. For 83.0 % of all fractures, an open approach was applied. The overall complication rate was 14.3 %. Fixation failure and nonunion were most often reported (fixation failure: 4.4 %; nonunion: 3.9 %). Nonunion and refracture occurred more often after open approaches than after minimal invasive osteosynthesis (nonunion: 4.5 vs. 0.0 %, p = 0.001; refracture: 3.8 vs. 0.6 %. p = 0.024). The relative risk for nonunion was 11.9 (95 % CI 4.5-31.5) times higher (p < 0.0001) for non-locking plates (13.0 %) than for locking plates (1.1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical evidence of published studies dealing with periprosthetic/interprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is generally low. This literature search suggested higher rates of nonunion and refracture after an open approach and a higher risk of nonunion for non-locking plates compared to locking plates. Based on the available clinical evidence, no treatment recommendations can be given.

Periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem: overcoming challenges and avoiding pitfalls

Management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem after total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant challenge and optimal treatment remains controversial. The most common treatment paradigm involves treating fractures around a well-fixed stem with osteosynthesis, whereas fractures around a loose stem require revision arthroplasty and those with poor bone require augmentation with bone graft. Paradoxically, the literature reports a higher rate of failure for osteosynthesis around prostheses considered to be well-fixed. Such a high rate of poor outcomes may result not only from difficult fracture fixation and compromised biologic healing, but also from unrecognized peri-implant pathology. Therefore, proper preoperative and intraoperative evaluation is key, and a subset of patients may benefit from alternative management. We review the appropriate methods for evaluation and treatment of Vancouver type B fractures with particular emphasis on avoiding missteps that can lead to failure.

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review

PURPOSE

As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review.

METHODS

This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion.

RESULTS

Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA.

CONCLUSIONS

Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.

Revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fracture using an uncemented modular tapered conical stem

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a potentially devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty, with historically high rates of complication and failure because of the technical challenges of surgery, as well as the prevalence of advanced age and comorbidity in the patients at risk.

This study describes the short-term outcome after revision arthroplasty using a modular, titanium, tapered, conical stem for PFF in a series of 38 fractures in 37 patients.

The mean age of the cohort was 77 years (47 to 96). A total of 27 patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of at least 3. At a mean follow-up of 35 months (4 to 66) the mean Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 35 (15 to 48) and comorbidity was significantly associated with a poorer OHS. All fractures united and no stem needed to be revised. Three hips in three patients required further surgery for infection, recurrent PFF and recurrent dislocation and three other patients required closed manipulation for a single dislocation. One stem subsided more than 5 mm but then stabilised and required no further intervention.

In this series, a modular, tapered, conical stem provided a versatile reconstruction solution with a low rate of complications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1031–7.

Radiographic features of teriparatide-induced healing of femoral fractures

Teriparatide is a drug that is used to increase bone remodeling, formation, and density for the treatment of osteoporosis. We present three cases of patients with a femoral insufficiency fracture. The patients were administered teripatatide in an attempt to treat severe osteoporosis and to enhance fracture healing. We found several radiographic features around the femoral fractures during the healing period. 1) Callus formation was found at a very early stage in the treatment. Teriparatide substantially increased the unusually abundant callus formation around the fracture site at 2 weeks. Moreover, this callus formation continued for 8 weeks and led to healing of the fracture. 2) Abundant callus formation was found circumferentially around the cortex with a ‘cloud-like’ appearance. 3) Remodeling of the teriparatide-induced callus formation was found to be part of the normal fracture healing process. After 1 year, normal remodeling was observed on plain radiographs. These findings indicate that teriparatide can be used as an adjuvant therapy in the management of femoral insufficiency fractures.

•

Radiographic features of teriparatide-induced healing of femoral fractures were assessed.

•

Teriparatide accelerated and enhanced fracture healing of femoral fractures

•

Teriparatide-induced fracture healing was followed by a normal fracture healing process.

•

Teriparatide can be used as an adjuvant therapy in the management of femoral insufficiency fractures.

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after femoral revision using a long stem

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are becoming increasingly common and are a major complication of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty. The treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture after femoral revision using a long stem is more complex and challenging. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical and radiographical features of periprosthetic femoral fractures after revision using a long stem.

METHODS

We report a retrospective review of the outcomes of treatment of 11 periprosthetic fractures after femoral revision using a long stem. Eleven female patients with a mean age of 79.2 years (70 to 91) were treated for a Vancouver type B1 fracture between 1998 and 2013. The mean numbers of previous surgeries were 3.1 (2 to 5).

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 58.9 months (8 to 180). We found several important features that might influence the outcome of treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures after femoral revision using a long stem: 1) all cases were classified as Vancouver type B1. 2) 6 patients (55%) had a transverse fracture around the tip of the long stem. 3) 7 patients (64%) had a history of previous fracture of the ipsilateral femur. The type B1 fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation in 9 hips, 6 of which were reinforced with bone grafts. Two other periprosthetic fractures were treated with femoral revision. One was revised because of stem breakage, and the other was a transverse fracture associated with poor bone quality, which received a femoral revision with a long stem and a plate. All fractures except one achieved primary union. This failed case had a bone defect at the fracture site, and revision surgery using a cementless long stem and allografts was successful.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that most cases of type B1 fracture after revision using a long stem have been treated successfully with open reduction and internal fixation. However, a transverse fracture with very poor bone quality might be considered as a type B3 fracture, and femoral revision might be a treatment of choice.

Periprosthetic femur fractures

Successful treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures, like all fractures, requires careful attention to understand the fracture pattern nuances, identifying and executing a rational treatment approach, and providing an appropriate postoperative recovery protocol. Unlike most other fractures, modification of standard techniques is often required to obtain a stable fixation construct, and there is a greater role for revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. Optimal indications for surgical repair versus revision arthroplasty and optimal postoperative weight-bearing protocols remain uncertain. Reported outcomes for patients with periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures are generally good and are relatively consistent. Results for periprosthetic distal femur fractures, however, are less good and more inconsistent. Both periprosthetic femoral shaft and distal femur fractures are associated with relatively high mortality rates, approaching that of patients with hip fractures. This review should provide insight into the current solutions and challenges for the treatment of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures.

Periprosthetic fractures: bespoke solutions

We are currently facing an epidemic of periprosthetic fractures around the hip. They may occur either during surgery or post-operatively. Although the acetabulum may be involved, the femur is most commonly affected. We are being presented with new, difficult fracture patterns around cemented and cementless implants, and we face the challenge of an elderly population who may have grossly deficient bone and may struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. The correct surgical management of these fractures is challenging. This article will review the current choices of implants and techniques available to deal with periprosthetic fractures of the femur.

The management of type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: when to fix and when to revise

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures around total hip arthroplasty is increasing as patient longevity rises and the number of patients with hip implants continues to grow. Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures are associated with a well-fixed stem and have traditionally been treated with internal fixation. However, there are a subset of these fractures which fare badly when internal fixation is undertaken, and revision of the femoral component to a long-stemmed implant may be more appropriate. We look at the traditional methods of fixation, and the evidence and indications for revision of these fractures.

Impaction bone grafting for periprosthetic fractures around a total hip arthroplasty

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures has been reported to be between 1 and 20.9% and appears to be on the rise. Fractures that occur around the femoral stem, particularly when the stem is loose or there is a loss of bone stock pose a technical challenge. These are rare injuries and there is considerable debate regarding their optimal treatment. Reconstruction with large segment endoprosthetic replacement is an acceptable solution for elderly patients who have limited functional demands and where the prosthesis is expected to outlive the patient. The younger patient poses a much greater challenge, the bone must be reconstituted and the femoral canal geometry must sufficiently restored to allow the stable insertion of a prosthesis. There are very few techniques that exist in this scenario. One such technique is impaction bone grafting and revision to a long smooth tapered cemented stem. This allows the restoration of bone stock and the stable insertion of a prosthesis. The aim of this article is to discuss the theory behind impaction bone grafting, the technical aspects and challenges of this technique, including fracture reduction methods, and to appraise all the literature available on impaction bone grafting for periprosthetic fractures.

Postoperative periprosthetic fractures in patients with an Exeter stem due to a femoral neck fracture: cumulative incidence and surgical outcome

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to report on the cumulative incidence and the outcome of surgically-treated postoperative PPFs in patients with femoral neck fractures treated with a THA or HA using an Exeter stem.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients operated during 1998-2010 due to a non-pathological femoral neck fracture using an Exeter stem were included in this cohort study. Patients were followed until 2012, or death, in order to obtain information about reoperations due to postoperative PPFs, and subsequent re-operations after surgery due to PPFs. In addition to local audit data the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's registry was used to identify patients who had been re-operated upon elsewhere in Sweden.

RESULTS

A total of 2,757 patients (median age 82 years, 2,019 females) were identified and included in the study. Of these patients, 63 (2.3%) sustained a postoperative PPF that was treated surgically. The majority of the Vancouver B1 (n = 21/23) and C (n = 14/14) fractures were treated using open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), whereas most of the B2 (n = 16/25) fractures and the only B3 fracture were treated with stem revision. Three (4.8%) patients were subsequently re-operated upon due to fracture-related complications, all B2 fractures, and were treated with ORIF (n = 2) or stem revision (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

The cumulative incidence of surgically treated PPFs was considerable among patients with Exeter stems operated due to a femoral neck fracture. The re-operation rate due to fracture-related complications was highest among patients with B2 fractures.

Primary cementless hip arthroplasty as a potential risk factor for non-union after long-stem revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic femoral fractures

PURPOSE

In case of stem loosening in periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF), revision arthroplasty should be performed. The first hypothesis of this study was that advanced patient age and female gender shows higher non-union rates. The second hypothesis was that primary cementless arthroplasty is associated with a higher non-union rate compared to cemented primary hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

All PPFF occurring between January 2000 and June 2010 treated by revision arthroplasty were included. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify independent variables leading to fracture non-union.

RESULTS

Eighty one patients (78 % female) met the inclusion criteria. In 20/81 patients (24.7 %) no adequate fracture healing could be determined on radiographs 12 months after revision surgery. Although age and female gender showed a positive correlation with bony non-union after PPFF as expected, the p-values were not statistically significant. Multiple regression analysis revealed primary cementless prosthesis (p = 0.001) to be the only independent variable associated with non-union.

CONCLUSION

Non-cemented primary prosthesis might be a negative predicting factor for the development of non-union after long-stem revision arthroplasty in PPFF. We therefore recommend the thorough debridement of pannus tissue thus inducing bone healing before the implantation of revision prostheses.

A systematic review of open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures with or without allograft strut, cerclage, and locked plates

Few comparative studies exist for open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver B1 and C fractures. We therefore performed a systematic review of fractures treated with or without an allograft strut, and using various fixation techniques. Thirty-seven manuscripts including 682 fractures were identified between 1992 and 2012. Percent union was similar for Vancouver B1 fractures treated with or without an allograft strut (90.7% vs. 91.5%). Time to union (4.4 vs. 6.6 months) and deep infection (3.8% vs. 8.3%) were increased with use of allograft struts. Percent union and time to union were unaffected by plate type or use of cerclage. We conclude that due to increased infection and time to union, allograft struts should be used cautiously during operative treatment of Vancouver B1 factures.

Interprosthetic femoral fractures-A challenge of treatment. A systematic review of the literature

The success of prosthetic surgery has led to an increase in the percentage of the population having more than one prosthetic implant. This, combined with an increase in the average life expectancy and functional requirements for the elderly, has led to a higher incidence of periprosthetic and interprosthetic fractures. More precisely, the femoral shaft is compressed between two ipsilateral implants with most of these fractures being located on the supracondylar femoral shaft. Their treatment is not only technically demanding and challenging, but can also be associated with serious complications. Treatment must be determined and assessed according to the type of fracture, the stability of the prosthesis, the bone quality and the general condition of the patient. There is little information in the literature about this type of injury: there are several published case reports detailing unconventional solutions and the case studies presented are limited and not significant. This review aims to provide an updated and comprehensive list of diagnostic and therapeutic protocols accepted today, while recognising that these protocols are being continuously updated according to experience gained.

Clinical outcome following surgical intervention for periprosthetic hip fractures at a tertiary referral centre

Complications following surgical intervention for periprosthetic hip fractures are not uncommon. We report the clinical outcome following definitive surgical intervention for this indication at a single tertiary referral centre. All patients admitted between 2003 and 2009 undergoing such treatment were included. Patient demographics, all surgical interventions, complications following definitive fracture treatment, and postoperative mortality were recorded. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the Vancouver classification for each fracture. There were 67 patients (mean age at revision 76.7 years; 61% female). Fractures occurred around primary total hip arthroplasties (43%), revision arthroplasties (34%), and hip hemiarthroplasties (23%). Mean time to fracture from the most recent arthroplasty performed was 7.0 years. Most fractures were Vancouver type B2 (49%). The majority of patients underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (96%), using long-stemmed prostheses or proximal femoral endoprostheses, with cables for fracture fixation. Wound infection and systemic complications were seen in 16% and 13% respectively. One or more further surgical interventions were performed in 12%. There were no deaths in-hospital or at 30-days, with 10 fatalities (15%) at a mean 2-year follow-up. Lower rates of re-intervention and mortality were observed when surgery for acute periprosthetic hip fractures was performed at a tertiary centre. Revision hip arthroplasty with or without fracture fixation proved an effective and safe treatment of periprosthetic hip fractures in a high-risk patient population.

Locking plate fixation for Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a critical analysis of 135 cases

PURPOSE

The overall incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) is between 0.1 and 6 % of all total hip arthroplasties. Locking compression plates (LCP) have been used for the treatment of Vancouver B1 PPFs with variable results. The aim of this study is to examine the literature on locking plate failure rates, mode and reasons for failure.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search was conducted for studies reporting the management of PPF of the femur with LCP fixation. The primary medical search engines used for the study were Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to August 2012.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified, reporting overall union rates of 91 % in 135 fractures. Only 7 (5 %) fractures required revision surgery due to plate fracture (5) or pull out (2). Important trends in plate complications included: stress riser at the end of the plate, stress concentration in the fracture area due to rigid fixation, early loading and absence of cortical strut grafting for biological support when needed.

CONCLUSION

LCP has been used successfully in the management of Vancouver B1 PPF. However, potential areas of improvement include, leaving the fracture site free of locking screws, therefore, not disturbing the soft tissue envelope around the fracture and also reducing plate stiffness. Adding cortical strut allografts to improve stability and bone quality, if needed, may also improve outcome. Limitations in the use of strut grafts or transverse fractures below the tip of the stem that cannot be controlled with single or double plating may require long stem revision to achieve axial stability.

Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures treated with the uncemented Wagner revision stem

The clinical and radiological results of Vancouver type B2 and B3 peri-prosthetic fractures treated with an uncemented Wagner revision stem (3rd generation) were analysed. Two groups were identified, 15 patients had a B2 and 14 cases a B3 periprosthetic fracture. The mean follow-up was 74 months after the index operation. All fractures had united radiographically. No cases of non-union were found. There was only one case of aseptic loosening. The clinical scores presented encouraging results for both groups. The uncemented distal fixation stem was an effective solution in the treatment of type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femur fractures at mid-term follow up.

Femoral replacement for salvage of periprosthetic fracture around a total hip replacement

A total of 20 patients with a mean age of 72 (range: 36-91) were managed with replacement of the proximal (15) or total (5) femur for salvage of a periprosthetic femoral fracture with bone loss. A mean 12.5 years had elapsed between primary total hip replacement and surgery and the mean follow-up was 48 months (range: 12-116 months). Clinical outcome was assessed using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (mean: 68, range: 32-98) and Short Form 36 (SF-36; mean Physical Component Score (PCS): 53, range: 44-62; mean Mental Component Score (MCS): 51, range: 41-64). No prostheses were radiologically loose. There were six major complications; three patients suffered a postoperative dislocation; two patients had persistent deep infection (present preoperatively); and one patient suffered a fracture of their femur distal to the femoral stem of a proximal femoral replacement. Endoprosthetic replacement of the femur is a reasonable salvage option for patients with periprosthetic fracture and bone loss, with good clinical results. It allows immediate weight bearing and does not rely on bony union for success.