Search

Introduction: Our understanding of the impact of the stem fixation method in total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the subsequent management of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) is still limited. This study aimed to investigate and quantify the effect of the stem fixation method, i.e., cemented vs. uncemented THA, on the management of Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures with the same plate. Methods: Eight laboratory models of synthetic femora were divided into two groups and implanted with either a cemented or uncemented hip prosthesis. The overall stiffness and strain distribution were measured under an anatomical one-legged stance. All eight specimens underwent an osteotomy to simulate Vancouver type B1 PFF’s. Fractures were then fixed using the same extramedullary plate and screws. The same measurements and fracture movement were taken under the same loading conditions. Results: Highlighted that the uncemented THA and PFF fixation constructs had a lower overall stiffness. Subsequently, the mechanical strain on the fracture plate for the uncemented construct was higher compared to the cemented constructs. Conclusion: PFF fixation of a Vancouver type B1 fracture using a plate may have a higher risk of failure in uncemented THAs.

Background: Early failure of uncemented femoral stems associated with incorrect sizing is a known postoperative complication. Surgeons are often faced with the question of whether an uncemented stem of adequate stability or a larger-sized stem should be implanted, especially when the proximal femoral cancellous bone is adequate. The biomechanical effect of sub-optimal stem sizing in the femur remains unclear. This study investigated the mechanical behaviour of two sequential sized uncemented stems of the same type. Methods: Six laboratory models of synthetic non-osteoporotic femora were randomly divided into two groups and implanted with either a nominal or oversized uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated nonporous titanium collarless stem. Stiffness, uniaxial strain, and pattern of strain distribution were measured under an anatomical one-legged stance. Results: Oversized stems demonstrated a higher overall stiffness compared to nominal; however, this was not statistically significant. The nominal stem showed a higher strain in the neck and the proximal medial diaphyseal region. The oversized stem showed higher strains in the distal region around the implant tip. Conclusion: Opting to use a larger stem may potentially increase primary stability, thus allowing safer early mobility. However, higher stiffness may lead to stress shielding, bone loss, and thigh pain in the long term. In addition, strains in the diaphysis and the tip of the stem may predispose to periprosthetic fractures, especially in osteoporotic bones, making this a relatable aspect for users and biomechanical loading. Given the wide range of complex factors that need to be considered when choosing stem size in uncemented THA surgery, this study’s results should be interpreted cautiously.