Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to report mid-term clinical and radiographic results after hip arthroplasty revision in Vancouver type B2 femoral periprosthetic fractures (PPFx). Specifical focus of the paper is as follows: (1) the description of a standardized and reproducible surgical technique, (2) functional outcomes presentation and (3) type and number of complications and implants' survival rate analysis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated for hip revision with non-modular tapered fluted titanium stem in patients with Vancouver type B2 femur PPFx at a single institution. At least 18 months' follow-up period was required. Harris Hip Scores and SF-12 were obtained, and radiographical follow-up was performed. Complications were reported and analyzed. Results: The authors included 114 patients (114 hips) with a mean follow-up of 62.8 ± 30.6 months. All patients were treated with Wagner SL revision hip stem (Zimmer-Biomet), metal cerclage wires ± trochanteric plate. The mean HHS and SF-12 score at the last follow-up evaluation were respectively 81.3 ± 9.7 and 32.5 ± 7.6. Seventeen (14.9%) complications occurred. We observed five cases of dislocations, two of periprosthetic joint infections and six cases of new PPFx. The stem-related revision rate for any cause at the final FU was 1.7%, due to PJI. No patients underwent stem revision surgery for aseptic loosening. Fracture healed in all the included patients with a union-rate of 100%. The re-operation rate for any cause was 9.6%, with an implant survival rate for overall failure of 96.5%. Conclusion: The presented standard and reproducible surgical technique obtains optimal clinical and radiological results with limited complication rate at mid-term follow up. Preoperative planning as well as careful intraoperative surgical technique is of a paramount importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the number of primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed each year continues to rise, so too do the number of complications, including periprosthetic femoral fracture1-9. Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures are difficult to treat because they require the surgeon to simultaneously manage a femoral fracture and gain new implant fixation. Fluted tapered stems have advanced the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures by providing immediate axial and rotational implant fixation distal to the fracture10-18. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the added practical advantage of allowing length and anteversion adjustment after implantation of the distal fixation portion of the stem. Description: In this technique, a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy incorporating the fracture is utilized to gain access to the loose femoral implant and femoral diaphyseal canal. The femoral diaphyseal canal is then sequentially reamed in 1-mm increments. A fluted tapered stem with the appropriate length, diameter, and axial and rotational stability is inserted into the canal. A proximal body is then chosen that establishes the appropriate leg length, femoral offset, and version. The final proximal body is engaged into the fluted tapered stem. Finally, the fracture is fixed around the implant with a combination of cables or wires. Alternatives: Historically, implants such as extensively porous coated stems were utilized to treat Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Unfortunately, these implants were associated with high rates of failure and revision7,9. Rationale: The introduction of a fluted tapered stem provided a more reliable implant that achieves immediate axial and rotational stability. In addition, utilizing a fluted tapered stem allowed for a more soft-tissue-preserving approach to these complex injuries, in turn allowing the fracture to be reduced around the implant proximally with cerclage cables and or wires. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the additional advantage of allowing the surgeon to modify leg length, offset, and femoral version, independently of the fluted tapered stem. As a result of these unique advantages, these stems were introduced several years ago for the treatment of Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Expected Outcomes: Contemporary series have demonstrated that the use of a modular fluted tapered stem leads to improved implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with lower complication rates for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures1,10-12,14-19. Important Tips: Template both the fluted tapered stem and proximal body preoperatively. The proximal body should be templated at the ideal hip center of rotation that appropriately restores leg lengths and offset. Template the fluted tapered stem so that it provides appropriate isthmic fit and bypasses the most distal extent of the fracture by at least 2 cortical diameters. Utilize a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy for your exposure in order to facilitate visualization of the fracture and to provide direct access to the femoral canal. Place a prophylactic cable prior to preparing the femur for the implant in order to help prevent iatrogenic fracture. Place a trial stem and obtain intraoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs in order to assess the position of the implants and the risk of anterior cortical perforation. When placing the final implants, be sure the fluted tapered stem has both axial and rotational stability. Reduce and fix the fracture after the final implants are placed and the hip is reduced. Acronyms and Abbreviations: AP = anteroposterior MFT = modular fluted tapered (stem) ETO = extended trochanteric osteotomy THA = total hip arthroplasty CT = computed tomography PJI = periprosthetic joint infection [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Modular fluted tapered stems are reliably used for the treatment of Vancouver b fractures. • Historically, these patients had weightbearing restrictions postoperatively. • We examined stem subsidence and mortality in patients who were allowed to immediately weight bear compared to those made non-weightbearing. • There was no difference in subsidence rate between the WBAT and NWB cohort. • Earlier weightbearing was also associated with trends toward improved all-cause mortality rates at one-year postoperatively. Modular fluted, tapered stems provide a reliable treatment for Vancouver B2/B3 fractures. Historically, these patients had weightbearing restrictions postoperatively. Although full immediate postoperative weightbearing may provide benefits in this patient population, stem subsidence is a concern. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of post-operative weight-bearing status on stem subsidence in patients treated with modular tapered stems for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures. We sought to answer two questions: (1) Does full immediate postoperative weightbearing after revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic femur fracture lead to increased stem subsidence compared to protected weightbearing? (2) Is there a mortality difference between these two groups of patients with different weightbearing restrictions? From 2009 to 2015 all patients who underwent revision for Vancouver B2/B3 fractures were made non-weightbearing (NWB) for six weeks postoperatively. After 2015, immediate weightbearing as tolerated (WBAT) was allowed postoperatively. We compared stem subsidence between immediate postoperative and final radiographs. Additionally, we performed a Kaplan-Meijer analysis with one-year mortality as an endpoint. The final cohort included forty-seven patients with an average follow-up of 254 days. The average stem subsidence was 1.0 mm (95 % CI, 0.5–1.5 mm) in the NWB cohort and 0.3 mm (95 % CI, 0–0.7 mm) in the WBAT cohort (P = 0.10). In our survivorship analysis, we noted no deaths in the WBAT cohort compared to 17 % mortality in the NWB cohort at the one-year timepoint. Allowing patients to weight bear immediately after revision does not increase stem subsidence. Further studies are needed to determine whether early weightbearing provides a mortality benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Type I, flat-wedge and type II, dual-wedge stems are currently two common stem types used in primary, uncemented hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of periprosthetic femur fracture is higher in type I stems, possibly because of the different shapes and areas of bone contact. We aimed to compare the fracture pattern, stem stability during the fracture and type of subsequent procedures in periprosthetic femur fractures between type I and II stems.Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study conducted in a single tertiary referral hospital of Taipei, Taiwan. We included primary hip arthroplasty procedures using type I or type II stems complicated with postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures. We recorded the age, sex, ASA grade, index procedure, institution of where the index procedure was performed, trauma mechanism, time from index procedure to fracture, procedure for periprosthetic fracture and radiographic parameters including Dorr type, Vancouver classification, stem stability, fracture pattern, type and brand of the stems for analysis.Results: We included 132 patients who had undergone surgery for periprosthetic femur fracture for type I (N = 46) or type II (N = 86) stems. The mean age was 74.5 years and 52.3% of the patients were female. Type I stems were associated with a higher proportion of a complex fracture pattern (52.2% vs. 8.2%), femoral stem loosening (78.2% vs. 60.4%) and a higher rate of revision stem procedures (69.6% vs. 50.0%) compared with type II stems. Using multivariate analysis, type I stem was the only factor for a complex fracture pattern in the overall population (aOR: 23.60, 95% CI: 6.54-85.16), hemiarthroplasty (aOR: 160.50, 95% CI: 9.77-2635.95) and total hip arthroplasty (aOR: 14.17, 95% CI: 2.92-68.79) subgroups.Conclusion: We observed a difference in fracture patterns between type I and type II stems. Type I stems appear to be an independent risk factor for a complex fracture pattern in patients who had undergone primary hip arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the potential risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: This was a retrospective study. Patients who were diagnosed with DDH and undergoing THA (by artificial joint replacement) at our hospital from January 1999 to December 2019 were included in this study. Clinical and radiological factors were obtained from their medical records, such as age, sex, Crowe classification, morphological features of proximal femur, and features of surgical procedure. The outcome of interest was the occurrence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture, which was recorded and classified according to the Vancouver classification system. According to the fracture status, the patients were divided into two groups: the fracture group and the non‐fracture group. Multivariate logistic regression model was built to identify the risk factors for these fractures. Results: A total of 1252 hips were finally included. Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures were identified in 62 hips. The incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH undergoing THA was 4.95%. There were 22 patients (proportion = 35.48%, incidence = 1.76%) with Type A fractures, 38 (proportion = 61.29%, incidence = 3.04%) with Type B fractures, and two (proportion = 3.23%, incidence = 0.16%) with Type C fractures. Six independent risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures were identified: osteoporosis (OR = 3.434; 95% CI, 1.963–6.007), previous surgical history (OR = 4.797; 95% CI, 2.446–9.410), Dorr Type A canal (OR = 3.025; 95% CI, 1.594–5.738), retained femoral neck length (OR = 1.121; 95% CI, 1.043–1.204), implanted metaphyseal‐diaphyseal fixation stems (OR = 3.208; 95% CI, 1.562–6.591), and implanted stem with anteversion design (OR = 2.916; 95% CI, 1.473–5.770). Conclusions: The overall incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH undergoing THA was 4.95%, which was at a moderate level compared to patients with other diseases undergoing THA. Six independent risk factors were identified: osteoporosis, previous surgical history, Dorr Type A canal, insufficient neck osteotomy level, implantation of metaphyseal‐diaphyseal fixation stem, and implantation of a stem with an anteversion design. Comprehending these risk factors might help surgeons prevent the occurrence of these intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Periprosthetic femur fractures are complex injuries that can be difficult to treat and recover from. With a growing number of total hip arthroplasties (THA) and revision arthroplasties being performed in an aging population, the incidence of these injuries is on the rise. Multiple studies exist detailing outcomes associated with periprosthetic femur fractures after THA, but no study has directly compared the post-operative course between fracture types as classified by the Vancouver classification system. This study compares the three Vancouver B fracture types to see if any type is associated with an increase in post-operative complications than others. Materials and methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted at a suburban orthopedic surgery department. Overall, 122 patients who presented to our hospital with periprosthetic proximal femur fractures after hip arthroplasty over the past 13 years were reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent surgical stabilization of their femur fracture. Patients were excluded if they underwent non-operative treatment or had missing chart information. For each patient, demographic information, fracture information, surgical information, post-operative course, and post-operative opioid usage were recorded and compared among groups. Results: Overall, 88 fractures were included. Fifty-five (62.5%) were Vancouver type B1, 27 (30.7%) were Vancouver type B2, and 6 (6.8%) were Vancouver type B3. Most of our patients were female (n = 62, 70.5%) and older than 81 years of age (n = 53, 60.2%) with uncemented prosthesis (n = 83, 94.3%). All three fracture groups had statistically similar union rates (p = 0.77), infection rates (p = 0.32), subsequent fractures (p = 0.63), repeat surgeries (p = 0.64), and post-operative opioid use (measured in milli-morphine equivalents) after surgical stabilization (p = 0.96). Conclusions: While periprosthetic femur fractures after hip arthroplasty are associated with high complication rates and poor outcomes, there is no difference in union rate, infection rate, subsequent fractures, repeat surgery rate, and opioid usage between the different Vancouver B fracture types. Level of evidence: Prognostic level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, an increase in periprosthetic femur fractures has become apparent due to the increased number of hip replacements. In the case of Vancouver type B1 fractures, locking plate systems offer safe procedures. This study compared the distal lateral femur plate (LOQTEQ®, aap Implantate AG) with a standard L.I.S.S. LCP® (DePuy Synthes) regarding their biomechanical properties in fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures after hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that the new LOQTEQ system has superior stability and durability in comparison. Eighteen artificial left femurs were randomized in two groups (Group A: LOQTEQ®; Group B: L.I.S.S. LCP®) and tested until failure. Failure was defined as 10° varus deformity and catastrophic implant failure (loosening, breakage, progressive bending). Axial stiffness, loads of failure, cycles of failure, modes of failure were recorded. The axial stiffness in Group A with 73.4 N/mm (SD +/− 3.0) was significantly higher (p = 0.001) than in Group B (40.7 N/mm (SD +/− 2.8)). Group A resists more cycles than Group B until 10° varus deformity. Catastrophic failure mode was plate breakage in Group A and bending in Group B. In conclusion, LOQTEQ® provides higher primary stability and tends to have higher durability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]