Periprosthetic humeral fractures: practical guide for treatment : Classification, challenges and contemporary treatment strategies

PHILOS plating of periprosthetic humeral shaft fracture after onlay-type reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case report

Occurring in 0.5-3% of cases, periprosthetic humerus fractures pose a challenge, necessitating effective management strategies. A comprehensive review was conducted using PubMed. Used terms included 'Periprosthetic humerus fractures; complications; periprosthetic fractures shoulder arthroplasty; periprosthetic humeral fracture treatment; nerve palsy humeral revision arthroplasty; infections after shoulder arthroplasty; postoperative complications AND open reduction AND humeral fractures; allograft AND long humeral stem'. Studies were excluded if they did not meet the actual topic, included more than primary shoulder arthroplasty and/or were in non-English or non-German language. Thirty-eight papers with evidence levels ranging from two to three were selected for this review. Various classification systems have been implemented; their validation though was based on studies with only a limited number of patients. Risk factors include osteopenia/osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, age, age-related lifestyle and gender. Treatment options range from conservative approaches to plate osteosynthesis or revision to a longer stem. Nevertheless, there is a lack of biomechanic studies and randomized-controlled clinical studies; hence, the evidence is low. Complications in revision arthroplasty encompass infections, nonunions, and nerve palsies, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment planning. The management of periprosthetic humeral fractures requires careful consideration of risk factors and tailored treatment plans. Existing literature relies on small case series and expert opinions, highlighting the need for further research to establish optimal treatment strategies for these challenging fractures.

Periprosthetic fractures can be devastating complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The management of periprosthetic fractures is complex, spanning expertise in arthroplasty and trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine and project trends in the operative treatment of periprosthetic fractures in the United States. A large, public and private payer database was queried to capture all International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes for periprosthetic femoral and tibial fractures. Statistical models were created to assess trends in treatment for periprosthetic fractures and to predict future surgical rates. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to assess significance. A Bonferroni correction was applied where applicable to account for multiple comparisons. In this study, from 2016 to 2021, 121,298 patients underwent surgical treatment for periprosthetic fractures. There was a significant increase in the total number of periprosthetic fractures. The incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures rose by 38% and that for periprosthetic knee fractures rose by 73%. The number of periprosthetic fractures is predicted to rise 212% from 2016 to 2032. There was a relative increase in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) compared with revision arthroplasty for both periprosthetic hip fractures and periprosthetic knee fractures. Periprosthetic fractures are anticipated to impose a substantial health-care burden in the coming decades. Periprosthetic knee fractures are predominantly treated with ORIF rather than revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), whereas periprosthetic hip fractures are predominantly treated with revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) rather than ORIF. Both periprosthetic knee fractures and periprosthetic hip fractures demonstrated increasing trends in this study. The proportion of periprosthetic hip fractures treated with ORIF relative to revision THA has been increasing. Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Periprosthetic humeral fractures are a rare and increasing entity due to the rising number of shoulder arthroplasties. These fractures pose a significant challenge for surgeons, with incidence rates ranging from 1.2% to 19.4%. They can occur intraoperatively or as late complications, often influenced by trauma, prosthetic wear, or loosening. A retrospective study was conducted on all patients admitted with periprosthetic humeral fractures over a four-year period (2018-2022). Inclusion criteria were postoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures with a minimum follow-up of six months. Exclusion criteria included intraoperative fractures, fractures of the glenoid or coracoid process, and cases with follow-up of less than six months or incomplete data. The study included six patients with an average age of 83.1 years, predominantly female (four females andtwo males). All fractures occurred postoperatively: four on reverse shoulder prostheses, one on an anatomical prosthesis, and one on a hemiarthroplasty. The mechanism was low-energy trauma, with fractures occurring an average of 96 months post-initial surgery. Fractures were classified using the Campbell system: three in region 4, two in region 3, and one in region 2. Radiographs showed four cemented and two uncemented stems. Three patients underwent surgical treatment with either prosthetic replacement using a long stem and fracture cerclage or lockingcompression plate (LCP). The remaining three patients were treated conservatively with a Sarmiento brace due to advanced age, bone fragility, low functional demand, and comorbidities. Radial nerve palsy was a complication in two patients post-trauma, with one recovering fully and the other not recovering before death due to associated complications. All fractures consolidated within an average of seven months (range: 5-8 months).Functional recovery was satisfactory with a median Constant-Murley Shoulder Score of 69in surgically treated patients, with range of motion between 100 and 140 degrees. Only two conservatively treated patients achieved fracture consolidation, and functional recovery was inadequate. Managing periprosthetic humeral fractures remains challenging. Treatment goals include fracture healing, maintaining prosthetic stem stability, preserving glenohumeral motion, and restoring shoulder function. Despite various classification systems, the literature shows limited and variable data on incidence and treatment outcomes. Conservative treatment may be considered for stable implants and acceptable alignment, but surgical intervention is often necessary for displaced fractures or implant loosening. The management of periprosthetic humeral fractures requires a tailored, multidisciplinary approach to optimize outcomes and improve patient quality of life. With the increasing incidence of these fractures due to the growing use of shoulder arthroplasty, ongoing research and development of new techniques and therapeutic strategies are essential to address this clinical challenge effectively.

Periprosthetic humeral fracture is a serious complication after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Wright and Cofield classificationtype B fractures occur around the tip of the humeral stem. In these fractures, the intramedullary canal is occupied by the stem and cement, which reduces endosteal blood supply and makes fracture healing more difficult. As a result, surgical management, such as open reduction and internal fixation or revision arthroplasty, is commonly recommended when displacement is present. However, these procedures are highly invasive and may pose substantial perioperative risk in elderly patients. An 82-year-old woman with multiple comorbidities underwent bony increased offset RSA (BIO-RSA) using a cemented humeral stem (Aequalis Ascend Flex; Stryker, Kalamazoo, USA). At postoperative year 4, she fell, which resulted in a displaced Wright and Cofield type B periprosthetic humeral fracture (type B fracture). Although valgus angulation progressed to 20° and the stem tip migrated medially, she had minimal pain and preferred nonoperative management due to her high surgical risk. Radiographs demonstrated preservation of cortical integrity on the lateral, anterior, and posterior aspects. Progressive callus formation was observed, and at one year after injury, bridging callus confirmed bone union. Forward elevation reached 100°, and she remained pain-free in her daily activities. Despite concerns that type B fractures are at risk for impaired union due to loss of endosteal blood supply, this case achieved bone union with conservative treatment. Preserved cortical continuity on three cortices likely maintained periosteal blood flow, which may have compensated for compromised intramedullary circulation. These findings suggest that nonoperative treatment may be feasible in selected patients, particularly when cortical integrity is preserved. Conservative treatment can achieve bone union even in displaced Wright and Cofield type B periprosthetic humeral fractures after RSA. Careful evaluation of cortical continuity on orthogonal radiographs, together with patient factors such as age and comorbidities, is essential when determining the optimal management strategy.

The increased utilization of shoulder arthroplasty, including revision procedures, combined with rises in life expectancy, is expected to translate into a substantial increase in periprosthetic humeral fractures. The evaluation and management of these fractures needs to be updated to consider fractures that complicate anatomic and reverse arthroplasties and contemporary short-stem and stemless implants. Although conservative treatment is successful in a large proportion of these fractures, several surgical reconstructive techniques are required for the management of all fracture types. Surgical options include internal fixation, graft augmentation, standard revision procedures, and occasionally complex reconstructions including modular segmental prosthesis and allograft prosthetic composites. Most studies on the outcomes of periprosthetic humeral fractures have analyzed small samples and have typically reported on anatomic total shoulders with a standard-length humeral implant. Additional research is required to optimize the management of periprosthetic postoperative humeral fractures in the era of reverse arthroplasty, short stems, and stemless arthroplasty.

IntroductionAs the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) surgery has dramatically increased in the last few decades, many complications have followed through. The periprosthetic fracture, at the moment, is still a subject of debate in the orthopedic world. In this monocentric study, along with a literature review of periprosthetic humeral fractures, we would present our institutional experience with the treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures with a posterior humeral approach, posterior cortex plate fixation, anterior strut allograft, screws, and cerclage wires.Materials and MethodsOur study consisted in a prospective monocentric study based on 18 patients, with a mean age of 75.3 years (range 64–88), all following a reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (RTSA). Postoperative follow-ups were taken at 1, 6, and 12 months with objective measurement of shoulder motion and strength, while clinical outcome measures were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES score) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Together with that, we performed a literature review focused on the management of periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty.ResultsAll fractures consolidated without complication at a mean 4.2 months (range 3–6). At final follow-up, the average active shoulder flexion was 88° (range 62–129°), active abduction 73° (range 52–91°) and active external rotation 22° (range 3–56°). The average ASES score was 73 (range 59–97), while average VAS score was 1.1 (range 0–3).DiscussionSurgical treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures following a shoulder arthroplasty remains a hard challenge for every surgeon, and their treatment must consider fracture’s location, displacement, and local bone quality.ConclusionsThe posterior approach with a posterior plate placement and anterior strut allograft, which is appliable only in case of a B or C type fracture according to Worland classification, could be a good treatment option for periprosthetic humeral fractures.

Periprosthetic fractures associated with shoulder arthroplasty are on the rise, which include humeral shaft fractures as well as scapular spine and acromion fractures. Although some of these fractures can be treated nonsurgically, surgery is indicated in certain situations. Because it is related to periprosthetic humeral shaft fractures, the Unified Classification System for Periprosthetic Fractures can be used to guide treatment. Type A fractures are stable and can be treated nonsurgically. Type B fractures at the tip of the stem have a high risk of failure with nonsurgical treatment, and benefit from surgical fixation. If the stem is stable (type B1), the fracture can be treated with open reduction and internal fixation. If the stem is unstable (type B2), revision arthroplasty is the treatment of choice. If there is bone loss associated with the loose stem (type B3), revision arthroplasty with allograft or megaprosthesis is the preferred method of treatment. For fractures well distal to the stem (type C) treatment is similar to that for native humeral fractures. Regarding acromial and scapular spine fractures, it is now recognized that patients who sustain this complication have poor outcomes with nonsurgical treatment, and surgical fixation is performed more frequently. Fixation techniques for acromial fractures are still evolving, and more literature in this field is needed.

The purpose of this study was to record the incidence and management of periprosthetic humeral fractures (PHF) using reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in our institution. We performed a retrospective study of 203 RTSA implanted in 200 patients between 2003 and 2014. The mean follow-up was 78.82 months (range, 12-141). Mean age of the study cohort was 75.87 years (range, 44-88). There were only 25 male patients (12.5 %). We assessed the presence of periprosthetic humeral fractures studying the medical files and X-rays of all patients. We identified seven periprosthetic humeral fractures in 203 RTSA (3.4 %): three intra-operative (1.47 %) and four post-operative (1.97 %). The average age at the time of the fracture was 75.14 years (59-83). All patients were women (100 %). Three patients with post-operative fractures type B were treated by osteosynthesis, and one patient with post-operative fracture type A was treated conservatively. All intra-operative fractures needed cerclage wire and in one case long cemented stem. All our periprosthetic fractures healed. Surgical treatment with osteosynthesis in type B post-operative fractures with a stable stem is recommended. Conservative treatment is sufficient in non-displaced type A post-operative fracture. Special attention should be paid to bone quality patients using non-cemented stems in primary surgery but especially in revision shoulder surgery.

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures is often complex, and few studies have documented its associated mortality. We retrospectively identified from our trauma and surgical registries 106 patients who underwent surgery for a periprosthetic femoral fracture. We then identified a contemporaneous age and sex-matched control cohort of 309 patients who had a hip fracture (femoral neck or intertrochanteric) and 311 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement. Mortality at one year was identified with use of the Social Security database. Twelve (11%) of 106 patients died within one year following surgical treatment of a periprosthetic fracture. During the same follow-up period, fifty-one (16.5%) of 309 patients died following surgery for a hip fracture and nine (2.9%) of 311 patients died following primary joint replacement. The mortality rate after a periprosthetic femoral fracture was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) compared with that for matched patients who had undergone primary joint replacement, and it was similar to the mortality rate after a hip fracture. For periprosthetic fractures, a delay of greater than two days from admission to the time of surgery was associated with an increased mortality rate at one year (p < 0.0007). Forty-nine patients underwent revision arthroplasty for the treatment of a Vancouver type-B periprosthetic fracture, and six (12%) died. In contrast, twenty-four patients with a Vancouver type-B periprosthetic fracture were treated with open reduction and internal fixation and eight (33%) died. The difference was significant (p < 0.03). The mortality rate within one year following surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures is high and is similar to that after treatment for hip fractures. Because revision arthroplasty for the treatment of type-B periprosthetic fractures was associated with a one-year mortality rate that was significantly less than that after surgical treatment with open reduction and internal fixation, in instances when either treatment option is feasible, revision arthroplasty may be the preferred option.

Objective To investigate the outcomes of the treatments for the patients with Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femur fractures. Methods Seventeen patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures (5 males and 12 females; average age, 70.4 years, range from 37 to 86 years) who underwent revision arthroplasty or open reduction and internal fixation between December 2006 and June 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Periprosthetic femoral fractures occurred at the mean time of 65.1 months after arthroplasty. Twelve patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation and five cases underwent total hip or stem revision with Solution from Depuy, Wagner from Zimmer, Echelon from Smith & Nephew or Secur-Fit Max from Stryker due to primary bone loss, acetabular component wear or long-time prosthesis use respectively. Data were collected at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and then each year postoperatively. All patients were followed up, and the results of X-ray, postoperative Harris hip score, stability of prosthesis and complications were also evaluated. Results A total of 5 patients underwent revision arthroplasty, and 12 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation. The mean follow-up duration was 56 months (range from 7 to 120 months). Total blood loss in the open reduction and internal fixation group and in revision group was 385±129 ml and 531±113 ml respectively. The operation duration in the open reduction and internal fixation group was 72±36 min while it was 126±48 min in the revision group. The postoperative Harris hip score in the open reduction and internal fixation group was significantly increased compared with preoperative Harris hip score (68.8±18.4 vs. 46.2±9.6), as well as in the revision group (75.0±8.9 vs. 57.4±13.0). For the incidence of complications, in the open reduction and internal fixation group, one patient suffer with delayed fracture union, one patient complained about persistent pain and one suffered a secondary fracture, while in the revision group one suffered from blood loss and one with long-term pain. Conclusion Open reduction and internal fixation is an optimal intervention for Vancouver B1 fracture, and revision arthroplasty can be considered as a safe alternative in patients with primary bone loss, implant of short survival time, severe liner wear or long-term prosthesis use. Key words: Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Periprosthetic fractures; Femoral fractures; Reoperation; Fracture fixation, internal

The rate of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty is rising and the estimated current lifetime incidence is 0.4-2.1%. While most authors recommend revision arthroplasty in patients with loose femoral shaft components, treatment options for patients with stable stem are not fully elucidated. Against this background we performed a retrospective chart analysis with clinical follow-up examination of 32 cases that sustained a Vancouver type B1 or C periprosthetic fracture (stable stem). Overall 16 cases were treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) by plate osteosynthesis and 16 cases by revision arthroplasty (RA). Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, follow-up time interval, time interval from primary hip arthroplasty to fracture and rate of cemented femoral components, but more type C fractures were treated by ORIF. Functional outcome expressed by the median timed "Up and Go" test did not differ significantly (30 s ORIF vs. 24 s RA, P = 0.19). However, by comparable systemic complications surgery-related complications were significantly more frequent in plate osteosynthesis (ORIF n = 10 vs. RA n = 3, P = 0.03). Based on our results, further studies, preferable via a multicenter approach, should focus on identifying patients that benefit from ORIF in periprosthetic fractures. A misinterpretation of type B2 fractures with loose implant as type B1 fractures may cause implant failure in case of ORIF. The use of angular stable implants, additional cable wires or bone enhancing means is recommended.

The management of periprosthetic fracture around the knee remains a challenging problem. The objective of this article was to review the general concepts, treatment algorithms, and the overall treatment outcomes of femoral and tibial periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty. This article aimed to highlight the deficiencies of the current classification systems that fail to provide a guideline for selection of appropriate treatment options. We proposed a new classification system for periprosthetic femoral fractures that takes into account the status of the prosthesis, the quality of distal bone stock, and the reducibility of the fracture. Type I fractures are those occurring in patients with good bone stock with the prosthesis being fixed and well positioned. Type IA fractures are either nondisplaced or easily reducible and can be treated conservatively. Type IB fractures are irreducible and require reduction and internal fixation. Type II fractures are defined as those occurring also in patients with good bone stock and being reducible, but either the components are loose or malpositioned. These fractures are treated by revision arthroplasty. Type III fractures are reducible or irreducible fractures that occur in patients with poor bone stock and in the vicinity of loose or malpositioned components. These fractures are treated by distal femoral replacement. Therapeutic study, level V (expert opinion). See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The aim of this study is to assess whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is appropriate for the surgical management of all proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures involving a polished tapered stem. This retrospective case series assessed the five year follow-up of 105 consecutive patients treated with ORIF following proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures with minimum 12-month follow-up. Primary outcome measure of this study was union at one year following surgery and secondary outcome measures included reoperation, post-operative infection and dislocation. 105 patients had periprosthetic fractures over 10 years (B1 n=31; B2 n=64; and C n=10). Union within one year of periprosthetic fractures were achieved in 76.7% of short oblique/transverse fractures and 100% of long spiral fractures. The fracture pattern and fracture location with B1, B2 and C type were disturbed in a statistically significant pattern. Importantly, each periprosthetic fractures that did not achieve union by one year resulted in plate breakage which resulted in further major revision surgery. We advocate that ORIF should be attempted in all proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures as only a small number of patients develop non-union and go on to require further surgery. Short oblique fractures at the tip of the stem are higher risk for non-union and dual plating could be considered in these cases.

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). 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. 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%). 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 J2023;105-B(2):124-134.