B2 Periprosthetic Fractures Research Articles

Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis.

Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures (PFF) are associated with stem instability and often require a demanding stem implant revision (SR) or internal fixation (ORIF). This latter surgery is increasingly performed in the last few years instead of SR, but it is unclear which is the best treatment to manage PFF patients. The aim of this study is the compare the outcomes of B2/B3 PFF managed by either ORIF or SR, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. Cochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were examined to find out relevant publications dealing with the different outcomes of SR vs. ORIF in B2/B3 PFF of the hip. The effect model (EM) was calculated using Cohen´s d index. Fifteen studies were included, reporting on a total of 1629 patients (564 ORIF and 1065 SR). The pooled random EM estimates for reoperation was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.39-1.96; I2 = 78%) in favor of ORIF surgery; EM for complications was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45-2.27; I2 = 85%) without difference among procedures. The EM for transfusion was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; I2 = 62%) in favor of fixation. ORIF and SR were both suitable and effective options in PFF patients, being associated to similar complications rates. Our results show that ORIF performance in PFF patients is associated to significantly less in blood loss, surgical time and in-hospital stay. These advantages are particularly appealing in patients with multiple comorbidities.

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

BackgroundManagement of periprosthetic fractures has been guided by the Vancouver classification, which recommends revision for fractures around a loose femoral implant (B2). New studies have challenged this approach, demonstrating acceptable outcomes with internal fixation. This study evaluates our experience with Vancouver B2 fractures, comparing internal fixation to femoral revision. We hypothesized that in select cases with cementless stems, internal fixation would provide acceptable results with reduced morbidity. MethodsA retrospective review was performed of periprosthetic hip fractures treated at our institution between 1 January 2012 and 4 November 2022. We excluded patients who did not have prior radiographs and evidence of stem subsidence, suggestive of a Vancouver B2 fracture. Thirteen patients were included in the analysis. ResultsFour patients (31%) underwent revision of the femoral component, 4 patients (31%) underwent plating, and 5 patients (38%) underwent internal fixation with cerclage cabling. The average operative duration was 158 minutes, 203 minutes, and 62 minutes for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively (P = .009). Blood loss was 463 cc, 510 cc, and 90 cc for the revision, plating, and cabling cohorts, respectively (P = .036). Three patients in both the revision and plating cohorts each received a transfusion (75%), whereas no patients in the cabling cohort required a transfusion (P = .033). All patients demonstrated fracture healing on the postoperative radiographs. No patients required additional surgery during the follow-up period. ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures with intact lateral cortices may be treated with internal fixation with cerclage cabling with excellent results.

Systemic Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Among Periprosthetic Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundMost periprosthetic fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are fragility fractures that qualify patients for osteoporosis diagnoses. However, it remains unknown how many patients were diagnosed who had osteoporosis before injury or received the proper evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment after injury. MethodsWe identified 171 Vancouver B2 (109) and B3 (62) periprosthetic femur fractures treated with a modular fluted tapered stem from 2000 to 2018 at 1 institution. The mean patient age was 75 years (range, 35 to 94), 50% were women, and the mean body mass index was 29 (range, 17 to 60). We identified patients who had osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnoses, a fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX), bone mineral density (BMD) testing, an endocrinology consult, and osteoporosis medications. Age-appropriate BMD testing was defined as no later than 1 year after the recommended ages of 65 (women) or 70 years (men). The mean follow-up was 11 years (range, 4 to 21). ResultsFalls from standing height caused 94% of fractures and thus, by definition, qualified as osteoporosis-defining events. The prevalence of osteoporosis diagnosis increased from 20% before periprosthetic fracture to 39% after (P < .001). The prevalence of osteopenia diagnosis increased from 13% before the fracture to 24% after (P < .001). The prevalence of either diagnosis increased from 24% before fracture to 44% after (P < .001). No patients had documented FRAX scores before fracture, and only 2% had scores after. The prevalence of BMD testing was 21% before fracture and 22% after (P = .88). By the end of the final follow-up, only 16% had received age-appropriate BMD testing. The proportion of patients who had endocrinology consults increased from 6% before the fracture to 25% after (P < .001). The proportion on bisphosphonate therapy was 19% before fracture and 25% after (P = .08). ConclusionsAlthough most periprosthetic fractures following THA are fragility fractures that qualify patients for osteoporosis diagnoses, there remain major gaps in diagnosis, screening, endocrinology follow-up, and treatment. Like nonarthroplasty fragility fractures, a systematic approach is needed after periprosthetic fractures. Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.

Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture.

According to Vancouver classification, B2 type fractures are most often treated with removal of the loose stem and implantation of a long stem that bypasses the fracture site. However, there is a controversy about the stem fixation that should be used: cemented or cementless. Hence, this study aims to compare cemented and cementless stems in prosthetic revision due to Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fracture. A retrospective study was done including all the patients treated with stem exchange due to VB2 periprosthetic hip fracture in a tertiary hospital between 2015 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to the stem fixation used: cemented or cementless. Functional outcomes, hospital stay, surgical time, complication rate, and mortality were compared between the two groups of patients. Of the 30 included patients, 13 (43.4%) were treated with cementless stems and 17 (56.7%) with cemented stems. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, anesthesia risk scale (ASA) or functional capacity prior to the intervention. Patients treated with cementless stems had a higher complication and reintervention rate than those treated with cemented stems: 62 and 45% versus 34 and 6% (p = 0.035; p = 0.010), respectively. Furthermore, in the group of cementless stems a higher proportion of non-union was found (53.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.037). Also, the hospital stay (33 vs. 24days; p = 0.037) and the time to full weight-bearing (21days vs. 9days; p < 0.001) were longer in the cementless stem group. Cemented fixation in stem revision due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture could be an optimal option with faster recovery which could decrease the rate of complications and reintervention, without compromising the fracture healing and patient mortality. Thus, this option can be considered when an anatomical reduction can be obtained, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities in which a less aggressive surgical option should be considered.

Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular fluted, tapered revision femoral component and interlocking screws in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic fractures with insufficient bone at the isthmus.

Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with Vancouver type B3 fractures with Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, and IV femoral defects are difficult to treat. One option for Paprovsky type IIIB and IV defects involves modular cementless, tapered, revision femoral components in conjunction with distal interlocking screws. The aim of this study was to analyze the rate of reoperations and complications and union of the fracture, subsidence of the stem, mortality, and the clinical outcomes in these patients. A total of 46 femoral components in patients with Vancouver B3 fractures (23 with Paprosky type IIIA, 19 with type IIIB, and four with type IV defects) in 46 patients were revised with a transfemoral approach using a modular, tapered, cementless revision Revitan curved femoral component with distal cone-in-cone fixation and prospectively followed for a mean of 48.8 months (SD 23.9; 24 to 112). The mean age of the patients was 80.4 years (66 to 100). Additional distal interlocking was also used in 23 fractures in which distal cone-in-cone fixation in the isthmus was < 3 cm. One patient (2.2%) died during the first postoperative year. After six months, 43 patients (93.5%) had osseous, and three had fibrous consolidation of the fracture and the bony flap, 42 (91.3%) had bony ingrowth and four had stable fibrous fixation of the stem. No patient had radiolucency around the interlocking screws and no screw broke. One patient had non-progressive subsidence and two had a dislocation. The mean Harris Hip Score increased from of 57.8 points (SD 7.9) three months postoperatively to 76.1 points (SD 10.7) 24 months postoperatively. The 2° tapered, fluted revision femoral component with distal cone-in-cone-fixation, combined with additional distal interlocking in patients with bony deficiency at the isthmus, led to reproducibly good results in patients with a Vancouver B3 fracture and Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, and IV defects with regard to union of the fracture, subsidence or loosening of the stem, and clinical outcomes.

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures treatment: fix or replace? A retrospective study comparing both techniques.

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures involve stem stability and they have been classically treated with revision surgery. Crucial factors such as age, clinical comorbidities and functional status are often neglected. The current study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or femoral stem exchange. This is a retrospective study that includes all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures in a tertiary referral hospital from 2016 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1. Patients treated with an ORIF and Group 2. Patients treated with stem replacement. The outcomes that were compared between groups included demographic data, functional capacity, complications and mortality. 29 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures were finally analyzed. 11 (37.9%) were treated with ORIF (Group 1) and 18 (62.1%) by stem replacement (Group 2). Surgery time (143 vs. 160min), hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.5g/dL) and hospital stance (25.5 vs. 29.6days) were shorter in Group 1. According to complications, 18.2% of patients in the ORIF group had orthopedic complications compared with 44.4% in the revision group. In the revision group, 3 cases needed a two-stage revision and one of these revisions ended up with a resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone). The first-year mortality rate was 27% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2. ORIF treatment seems to be a less aggressive and complex procedure which can lead to a faster general recovery. Revision surgery can imply a higher risk of orthopedic complications which can be severe and may require further aggressive solutions. The ORIF group mortality was similar to the proximal femur fracture rate (20-30%). In conclusion, ORIF treatment seems to be a good option especially in fragile patients with low functional demand when anatomical reduction is possible.

A Consecutive Series of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Contemporary Monoblock Versus Modular Revision Stems: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

BackgroundTapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are the implant design of choice for managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs), producing reliable results over the past few decades. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with contemporary monoblock versus modular TFTs. MethodsA consecutive series of 113 patients (72 women, 64%, mean age 70 years [range, 26 to 96]) who had a B2 PFF were treated with either a monoblock (n = 42) or modular (n = 71) TFT stem between 2008 and 2021. The mean body mass index was 30 ± 7. The mean follow-up was 2.9 years. A radiographic review was performed to assess leg length and offset restoration, endosteal cortical contact length, and stem subsidence. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine survivorship without revision, reoperation, or dislocation. ResultsThere was no difference in the restoration of leg length (0.3 ± 8.0 mm) or offset (2.8 ± 8.2 mm) between the monoblock and modular cohorts (P > .05). Mean endosteal cortical contact length (47.2 ± 26.6 versus 46.7 ± 2 6.4 mm, P = .89) and stem subsidence (2.7 ± 3.5 versus 2.4 ± 3.2 mm, P = .66) did not differ. No difference in patient-reported outcome measures (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement; Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical and Mental; visual analog score; and Lower Extremity Activity Scale) between the groups was observed. Survivorship at 2 years free from reoperation, revision, and dislocation was 90.4, 90.3, and 97.6%, respectively, for the monoblock cohort; and 84.0, 86.9, and 90.0%, respectively, for the modular cohort. ConclusionsNo significant differences in radiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between patients treated with monoblock or modular TFTs in this large series of B2 PFFs.

Analysis of complications in 97 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures treated either by internal fixation or revision arthroplasty

IntroductionThe treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is still a matter of debate. Revision Arthroplasty (RA) was long thought to be the treatment of choice, however several recent papers suggested that Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) is a viable option for selected B2 fractures. Complication rates of 14–26% have been reported following surgical treatment of B2 fractures. No significant difference between RA and ORIF in the complication rates nor in the functional outcome was observed.MethodWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 97 consecutive Vancouver B2 fractures treated according to the algorithm at our institution from 2007 to 2020 and recorded complications and patient specific data.ResultFrom the 97 patient, 45 fractures were treated with RA while 52 fractures were treated with ORIF. Thirteen patients in the RA group had a complication that needed revision (28%) and 11 patients in the ORIF group needed revision (21%). There was no significant difference between complication rates. The reason for failure in the 13 RA patients were infection (n = 4), stem subsidence (n = 1), refracture after a new fall (n = 3), secondary dislocation of the greater trochanter (n = 1) and dislocation (n = 4). The reason for failure in the 11 ORIF patients that were revised were infection (n = 5), persistent symptomatic stem loosening (n = 3) and refracture (n = 3) after a new fall.ConclusionORIF can be used to revise cemented and non-cemented shafts in more than half of Vancouver B2 fractures with no difference in complication rates when compared to RA. A periprosthetic fracture around the hip has a 21–28% risk of a re-operation after revision surgery with infection and re-fracture after a new fall being the most frequent cause of re-operation.

Revision of total hip arthroplasty by long locking stem with fully hydroxyapatite-coated modular metaphysis (Reef™): A continuous series of 78 cases at a minimum 2-year follow-up

IntroductionSince the Wagner and Vives stems were introduced in the 1980s, the range of uncemented implants for femoral revision has grown with increasing demand. Cementless modular implants with a wide range of lengths and diameters improved adaptation to the bone and secondary metaphyseal integration. Data are sparse for the Reef™ locking stem (Depuy-Synthes, Saint-Priest, France) and we therefore conducted a retrospective study at more than 2 years’ follow-up, in a continuous series of total hip arthroplasty (THR) revision procedures using this long fully-hydroxyapatite-coated modular locking stem, assessing (1) implant survival, (2) clinical and functional results, and (3) radiographic results. HypothesisThe study hypothesis was that all-cause≥2-year survival is>90%. Patients and methodsBetween 2007 and 2018, 413 femoral stem exchanges were performed in our center, a Reef™ model being needed in 93 cases. Etiologies comprised: Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic fracture (57%, n=53), aseptic loosening (33%, n=30), septic loosening (10%, n=9) and 1 case of aseptic non-union under the stem (1%, n=1). Clinical and functional assessment used Harris Hip Score (HHS), Postel Merle d’Aubigné score (PMA) and Oxford-12 Hip Score (OHS). Radiographic assessment used immediate postoperative views and last follow-up radiographs, assessing osseointegration, filling index and stress shielding. Implant survival was estimated following Kaplan-Meier with 95% confidence intervals. ResultsMean follow-up was 6±3 years (range, 2–12). Last follow-up included 78 cases for analysis (12 deaths [13%] and 3 patients lost to follow-up before 2 years [3%]). Ten-year Reef™ implant survival was 98.7% (95% CI: 96.3–100) free of aseptic loosening (n=1) and 94% (95% CI: 87–100) for all causes (n=3). The failures related to aseptic loosening involved femoral stem fracture away from the modular part; the 2 cases of septic loosening did not undergo reimplantation for medical reasons. Preoperatively (scheduled surgeries, excluding periprosthetic fractures: n=40), mean HHS was 43±12 and 77±12 at last follow-up (81±13 in scheduled surgery [n=40] and 73±11 in emergency surgery for periprosthetic fracture [n=53]), mean PMA score was 13±2 and mean OHS was 26±9. The infection rate was 11% (n=9) including 7.6% new infection (n=6). The dislocation rate was 6% (n=5). The radiographic stress shielding rate was 11% (n=9) and significantly associated with low metaphyseal filling index (76±7% vs. 83±8% [p=0.009]). DiscussionLike other recent data, the present good survival results support the trend for uncemented stems in femoral revision, as encouraged by the 1999 symposium of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT). Primary diaphyseal fixation enables secondary metaphyseal integration on an implant with modularity ensuring good bone adaptation. Close contact between the bone and hydroxyapatite surfaces is a key-point in the surgical strategy. Level of evidenceIV, retrospective study.

Monoblock tapered stems in management of UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures in revision total hip arthroplasty.

United Classification System (UCS) B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) have been commonly managed with modular tapered stems. No study has evaluated the use of monoblock fluted tapered titanium stems for this indication. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a monoblock stems on implant survivorship, postoperative outcomes, radiological outcomes, and osseointegration following treatment of THA UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures. A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent revision THA (rTHA) for periprosthetic UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fracture who received a single design monoblock fluted tapered titanium stem at two large, tertiary care, academic hospitals. A total of 72 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria (68 UCS B2, and four UCS B3 fractures). Primary outcomes of interest were radiological stem subsidence (> 5 mm), radiological osseointegration, and fracture union. Sub-analysis was also done for 46 patients with minimum one-year follow-up. For the total cohort, stem osseointegration, fracture union, and stem subsidence were 98.6%, 98.6%, and 6.9%, respectively, at latest follow-up (mean follow-up 27.0 months (SD 22.4)). For patients with minimum one-year of follow-up, stem osseointegration, fracture union, and stem subsidence were 97.8%, 97.8%, and 6.5%, respectively. Monoblock fluted stems can be an acceptable modality for the management of UCS B2 periprosthetic fractures in rTHAs due to high rates of stem osseointegration and survival, and the low rates of stem subsidence, and revision. Further research on the use of this stem for UCS B3 periprosthetic fractures is warranted to determine if the same conclusion can be made for this fracture pattern.

Treatment of Vancouver B2 Femur Fractures With Open Reduction Internal Fixation Versus Revision Arthroplasty.

Background Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures have traditionally been treated with revision arthroplasty.However, there is increasing evidence that open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) may be a valid alternative treatment strategy.The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of ORIF versus revision arthroplasty for the treatment of Vancouver B2 fractures and evaluate the influence of the treating surgeon's fellowship training on treatment selection. Methodology This was a retrospective cohort study of 31 patients treated for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures (16 ORIF and 15 revision arthroplasty) at a single academic Level 1 trauma center. Outcome measures included one-year mortality, revision, reoperation, infection, and blood loss. Results There were no statistically significant differences in revision, reoperation, or infection at an average follow-up of 65 weeks.Median estimated blood loss was higher in the arthroplasty group (700 cc versus 400 cc; P = 0.04).There were five deaths in the ORIF group versus one in the revision group (P= 0.18). Cases treated by surgeons with fellowship training in arthroplasty were more likely to be treated with revision arthroplasty (10/11, 90.9%) than those treated by surgeons with fellowship training in trauma (5/15, 33.3%; P< 0.01). Conclusions There was no difference in outcomes between the two treatment strategies, but revision was associated with higher blood loss.The appropriate treatment method should be based on surgeon familiarity and patients'characteristics.

Results of Hip Arthroplasty Using a COREN Stem at a Minimum of Ten Years.

We report on the 10-year clinical hip function and radiologic outcomes of patients who underwent hip arthroplasty using a COREN stem. A consecutive series of 224 primary cementless hip arthroplasty implantations were performed using a COREN stem between 2009 and 2011; among these, evaluation of 128 hips was performed during a minimum follow-up period of 10 years. The mean age of patients was 65.4 years (range, 40-82 years) and the mean duration of follow-up was 10.8 years (range, 10-12 years). Evaluation of clinical hip function and radiologic implant outcomes was performed according to clinical score, thigh pain, and radiologic analysis. Dramatic improvement of the mean Harris hip score (HHS) from 59.4 preoperatively to 93.5 was observed at the final follow-up (P≤0.01). Stable fixation was demonstrated for all implants with no change in position except for one case of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fracture. A radiolucent line (RLL) was observed in 16 hips (12.5%). Thigh pain was observed in only two hips (1.6%) at the final follow-up. There were no cases of osteolysis around the stem. The survival rate for the COREN stem was 97.7%. Good long-term survival with excellent clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved using the COREN femoral stem regardless of Dorr type.

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.

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

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. 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. 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. 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). III.

Outcomes After Operative Fixation of Vancouver B2 and B3 Type Periprosthetic Fractures

The incidence of periprosthetic femur fracture in the setting of total hip arthroplasty is steadily increasing. Although the traditional dogma is that loose femoral components must be revised, we propose that in a frail geriatric population, anatomic reduction and fixation of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fracture variants can restore stem stability and provide similar outcomes as revision arthroplasty. Retrospective cohort study. Level 1 trauma center, tertiary academic medical center. We identified 94 patients over 65 years of age with Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures sustained between 2005 and 2019. Patients were treated by either open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or revision arthroplasty (RA) with or without fixation. Outcomes were mortality, time to full weight-bearing after surgery, intraoperative estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperation, subsidence rate, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain and physical function scores. A total of 75 (79.8%) ORIF and 19 (20.2%) RA patients were reviewed. One-year mortality for our cohort was 26.3%, and there was no significant difference between groups. Mean time to weight bear and surgical complication rates were similar between groups. The ORIF group had a significantly shorter time to surgery than the RA group. The RA group had greater incidence and amount of subsidence as well as estimated blood loss than the ORIF group. In geriatric patients with Vancouver B2 and B3 type periprosthetic fractures with known loose stems, ORIF may offer a similarly safe method of treatment than revision arthroplasty. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cement-in-cement versus uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures

BackgroundTo compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF). MethodsPatients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database. ResultsWe identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate. ConclusionWith appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.

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

Although stem revision is recommended for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFs), there has recently been a debate whether, under certain conditions, they could be treated by osteosynthesis alone. This study aimed to describe the medium-term clinical and radiological results of several patients with V-B2 fractures treated via osteosynthesis. A retrospective study of patients with V-B2 PPHF treated by osteosynthesis without stem revision, operated on between 2009 and 2019, was performed. The type of arthroplasty, type of stem, ASA, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), medical and implant complications, reoperation rate, first-year mortality, radiological results (consolidation time), and functional results were analyzed. Thirty-nine patients were included. Their average age was 78.82 years. Most of the patients presented ASA ≥ 3 (35/39) and CCI ≥ 5 (32/39). Radiological consolidation was achieved in 93.5% of patients, with an average consolidation time of 92.93 days. The average Parker test score before admission was 5.84 while the current one was 4.92 (5.16 years follow-up). Osteosynthesis without stem revision is a valid surgical alternative in certain types of patients with V-B2 PPHF, depending on previous mobility, fracture pattern (anatomical reconstruction possible), anesthetic risk, comorbidities, and previous hip pain.

New Sub-Classification of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures According to Fracture Pattern

IntroductionThere is currently a debate on whether all Vancouver type B2 (V-B2) periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHF) should be revised. Vancouver classification takes into account fracture location, implant stability and bone stock, but it does not distinguish between fracture patterns. The aim of our work was to study the different fracture patterns of V-B2 PPHF and to analyze if there is any pattern that presents lower osteosynthesis failure rates. Material and methodsAll patients with V-B2 PPHF treated by osteosynthesis between January 2009 and January 2019 were included in the study. Using the Gruen system the proximal femur was divided into 3 zones. The lateral zone (Gruen 1±2±3), medial zone (Gruen 5±6±7), and distal zone (Gruen 4±3±5) were analysed and it was determined whether each of the 3 zones was fractured. Results56 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 79 years (R 45 - 92). The chosen treatment was: 39 Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), 10 Stem revision and 7 nonoperatively treatment. In ORIF group, no implant complications (0/24) were found in patients with a single fractured zone, while 5 implant complications (5/15) were discovered in patients with two or more fractured areas; this difference was significant (p=0.0147). All patients treated by stem revision had a fracture that involved two or more zones. In the nonoperatively group, the fracture pattern did not influence the treatment because of all of them had a very precarious functional and medical situation. ConclusionsV-B2 PPHF treated via ORIF affecting only one zone (medial, lateral, or distal) have a lower risk of complication than those affecting two or more zones. We propose a sub-classification of Vancouver B2 type fractures: B2.1 (1 fractured zone) and B2.2 (≥2 fractured zones). Level of evidenceHistorical cohorts. Level III

Midterm results and complications rates in vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with modular fluted tapered stems

ObjectiveEvaluate the mid-term success rate of these stems in periprosthetic femur fractures and to analyze the complications observed with the use of these stems. Methods:Thirty five patients that underwent hip revision surgery secondary to Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femur fracture were evaluated. In all cases, modular fluted tapered stems were used. Results:Average follow-up was 42 months. Average Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 78.11. Fracture healing was obtained in a 100% of the patients. Average implant survival was 50 months. Conclusion: Modular fluted tapered stems demonstrated a high rate implant stability, proximal femoral bone reconstitution, and fracture healing.

Comparative study of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fractures treated by internal fixation versus stem revision.

Currently, accepted treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures with loose femoral stem indicates its revision; however, recent studies have proposed treating Vancouver type B2 fractures via internal fixation without stem revision, particularly in the elderly or multi-morbid patients. Despite indications for stem revision, some surgeons tend to perform internal fixation. The main goal of this study was therefore to identify the parameters that were significantly different comparing internal fixation to stem revision for Vancouver type B2 fractures. Eighty-one Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated between 2010 and 2019, were analysed. The internal fixation (ORIF) and the revision groups were compared. Patients' age, BMI, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, anaesthesia type, operating time, blood loss, surgeons' experience, post-operative weight-bearing, length of hospital stay, and radiological outcome using AGORA roentgenographic assessment were analysed. Patients chosen for ORIF were significantly older than those treated by stem revision (85.4 vs 75.1 years; p = 0.002). Blood loss was 390.7 and 1141.6 ml in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The surgical times were 134.5 and 225 min in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Our analysis of BMI, ASA score, anaesthesia type, length of hospital stay, surgeons' experience and radiological outcome, were not significantly different between the two groups. Revision did not exhibit better radiological results; moreover, internal fixation resulted in significantly less perioperative blood loss and a shorter operating time, concluding that ORIF is a viable alternative to revision arthroplasty, particularly in older patients.