Periprosthetic Fractures Of Proximal Femur Research Articles

The Influence of Computerized Tomography Imaging on Treatment of Periprosthetic Proximal Femur Fractures.

Introduction Periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFF) are increasing in incidence and management of such injuries requires a specialized skill set combined with detailed knowledge of component design. To assist with planning, computed tomography (CT) can beusedpre-operatively to give a surgeon more information. No study to date has shown the utility of obtaining preoperative CT. The goal of this study is to show that CT is a useful diagnostic adjunct and report any differences in how subspecialties such as orthopedic traumatologists and arthroplasty surgeonsuse it. Methods Seventeen PPFF cases met our inclusion criteria.They were shown to six faculty, three trauma and three arthroplasty surgeons. They viewed the plain radiographs and then CTs. After each they filled out the same questionnaire that included their assessment of diagnosis and proposed treatment plan both before and after access to CT imaging. Fleiss and Cohen kappa were used to compare inter- and intra-observer reliability. Results The interobserver kappa values (k) in diagnosis were 0.348 pre- and 0.371 post-CT, while trauma and arthroplasty were 0.328 to 0.260 and 0.821 to 0.881 respectively. The interobserver reliability in treatment was 0.336 pre- and 0.254 post-CT, while trauma and arthroplasty were 0.323 to 0.288 and 0.688 to 0.519. For intraobserver the average k for diagnosis and treatment were 0.818 and 0.671. Broken down by subspecialty they were 0.874 and 0.831 and 0.762 and 0.510 for trauma and arthroplasty. There were 11 diagnostic and 24 treatment changes. Conclusion CT provides diagnostic changes 10% and treatment changes 24% of the time. However, it does not lead to greater agreement among the surgeons on either. Arthroplasty uses CT more to guide both their treatment and the diagnosis, and they agree more than trauma surgeons. Most of the treatment changes come from adding or removing a plate, and the most common diagnostic change was shared by A to B1 and B2 to B3. This suggests fracture extension and bone stock are better evaluated by CT.

How Often Do Complications and Mortality Occur After Operatively Treated Periprosthetic Proximal and Distal Femoral Fractures? A Register-based Study.

The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures is increasing because of an increasing number of primary THAs and TKAs. High rates of complications and mortality are associated with periprosthetic fractures, but few studies have evaluated and compared the population-based incidences of these events after fractures. (1) What is the annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures treated with surgery in one hospital district in Finland? (2) How are those incidences changing over time? (3) What is the risk of complications, reoperations, and death after those injuries? This register-based study evaluated 2259 patients who underwent revision THA or TKA or any surgery for a femoral fracture between January 2004 and December 2016 at the only hospital in our district where these types of operations are performed. During the study period, the diagnosis and operation codes of the operated-on patients varied greatly, and they were somewhat inaccurate. We thus evaluated radiographs of all 2259 patients one by one, and created inclusion and exclusion criteria based on radiologic findings and medical records. Of those, 12% (279 of 2259) had periprosthetic fractures that met the inclusion criteria, and from these, we formed two study groups (periprosthetic proximal femur fractures, n = 171; periprosthetic distal femur fractures, n = 108). Eighty-eight percent (1980 of 2259) of the patients were excluded because they were treated for a condition other than periprosthetic femoral fracture. The follow-up period ended in December 2019 or at the time the patient died. To evaluate the population-based incidence, we drew the number of individuals with THA or TKA in the hospital district from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register and the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register. The characteristics of patients with operatively treated periprosthetic femoral fractures were evaluated in terms of age, gender, fracture type, implant type, and time from the index operation to periprosthetic fracture. The annual incidences of periprosthetic femoral fractures are summarized per 1000 person-years of individuals living with an implanted THA or TKA and per 100,000 individuals per year living in our hospital district. The risks of death, complications, and reoperations were evaluated for both groups, and comparisons were made in terms of patient characteristics. The mean annual incidence of operatively treated periprosthetic proximal femur fractures per 1000 people living with THA implants was 2.3 ± 0.9 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.7) per year, and for those with periprosthetic distal femur fractures with TKA implants, it was 1.3 ± 0.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.7). There was an increasing trend in the incidence of periprosthetic proximal femur fractures from 1.6 to 3.8 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.8) per 1000 arthroplasties, and it increased from 0.4 to 1.7 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.4) for periprosthetic distal femur fractures between 2004 and 2016. The mean population-based incidence of periprosthetic proximal femur fractures per 100,000 person-years was 5.3 ± 2.2 (95% CI 4.1 to 6.4) per year, and for periprosthetic distal femur fractures, it was 3.4 ± 1.7 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.4). The incidence of periprosthetic proximal femur fractures related to 100,000 person-years increased from 3.2 to 8.9 (95% CI 3.9 to 6.6), while the incidence of periprosthetic distal femur fractures increased from 1.3 to 4.4 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.8) during the study period. The cumulative incidence of major complications after periprosthetic proximal femur fracture was 8.8% at 1 year (95% CI 5.1% to 13.6%) and 12.3% at 10 years (95% CI 7.5% to 18.4%), and after periprosthetic distal femur fracture, it was 7.4% at 1 year (95% CI 3.5% to 13.4%) and 9.3% at 10 years (95% CI 4.7% to 15.7%). The cumulative incidence of reoperation after periprosthetic proximal femur fracture was 10.5% at 1 year (95% CI 6.5% to 15.7%) and 13.5% at 10 years (95% CI 8.9% to 19.1%), and for periprosthetic distal femur fracture, it was 8.3% at 1 year (95% CI 4.1% to 14.5%) and 13.8% at 10% years (95% CI 7.8% to 21.4%). The cumulative incidence of death after periprosthetic proximal femur fracture was 8.2% at 1 year (95% CI 4.7% to 12.9%) and 47.3% at 10 years (95% CI 38.1% to 55.9%), and after periprosthetic distal femur fractures, it was 14.8% at 1 year (95% CI 8.8% to 22.2%) and 67.8% at 10 years (95% CI 56.3% to 76.9%). The increased use of THA and TKA has led to an increase in the incidence of operatively treated periprosthetic fractures, which means there will be more revisions in the future. Older age, frailty of these patients, and often-complicated fracture patterns are related to a high rate of complications, reoperations, and mortality. Healthcare systems must prepare for a large increase in revisions for periprosthetic fracture, which are morbid events for patients and costly ones for healthcare systems. Level III, therapeutic study.

Effect of Fracture Type, Treatment, and Surgeon Training on Reoperation After Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

BackgroundThe treatment of Vancouver B periprosthetic proximal femur fractures (PPFFs) is complex due to the overlap between arthroplasty and orthopedic trauma techniques. Our purpose was to assess the effects of fracture type, treatment difference, and surgeon training on the risk of reoperation in Vancouver B PPFF. MethodsA collaborative research consortium of 11 centers retrospectively reviewed PPFFs from 2014 to 2019 to determine the effects of variations in surgeon expertise, fracture type, and treatment on surgical reoperation. Surgeons were classified as per fellowship training, fractures using the Vancouver classification, and treatment as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or revision total hip arthroplasty with or without ORIF. Regression analyses were performed with reoperation as the primary outcome. ResultsFracture type (Vancouver B3 versus B1: odds ratio [OR]: 5.70) was an independent risk factor for reoperation. No differences were found in reoperation rates with treatment (ORIF versus revision: OR 0.92, P = .883). Treatment by a nonarthroplasty-trained surgeon versus an arthroplasty specialist led to higher odds of reoperation in all Vancouver B fracture (OR: 2.87, P = .023); however, no significant differences were seen in the Vancouver B2 group alone (OR: 2.61, P = .139). Age was a significant risk factor for reoperation in all Vancouver B fractures (OR: 0.97, P = .004) and in the B2 fractures alone (OR: 0.96, P = .007). ConclusionOur study suggests that age and fracture type affect reoperation rates. Treatment type did not affect reoperation rates and the effect of surgeon training is unclear.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation and Cement-In-Cement Revision for Selected Vancouver B Proximal Femur Periprosthetic Fractures

The incidence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures is increasing with the increase in arthroplasty being performed as well as aging populations. We describe an open reduction and internal fixation and cement-in-cement technique utilizing a well-fixed cement mantle. The advantages of this allow for a shorter operative time, reduction in risk of iatrogenic femoral fractures, and reduction in blood loss. This was a retrospective study reviewing 20 patients that underwent this technique for periprosthetic fractures. Thirty percent (n = 6) of patients underwent subsequent surgery. We had a 95% (n = 19) union rate with 1 case refracturing through the old fracture. This technique can allow for shorter operative times and a lower physiological insult in reducible periprosthetic proximal femur fractures with a stable cement mantle.

Long-term outcomes and complications of Periprosthetic Fractures of the Proximal Femur: A Retrospective Review of 48 Patients

Objectives: Periprosthetic fractures, especially periprosthetic proximal femur fractures, are an increasingly important orthopaedic problem. The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term results, mortality and complications of periprosthetic fractures. 
 Methods: Patients who had proximal femur periprosthetic fracture were evaluated retrospectively. Patients with Vancouver type B1 and C were treated with plate-screw osteosynthesis and patients with Vancouver type B2 were operated using revision femoral systems. Follow-up was evaluated by clinical and radiographic, and functional results were assessed by Gos scoring. 
 Results: Totally 48 patients were evaluated retrospectively. 16 patients (33.3%) were type B1, 18 patients (37.5%) were type B2 and 14 patients (29.2%) were type C. 30 patients (62.5%) with type B1 and C were treated with plate screw osteosynthesis and 18 patients (37.5%) with type B2 treated with revision femoral systems. There was a significant correlation between the surgical method applied and both mortality and preop/postop GOS scoring systems (p

Periprosthetic Fracture around a Cemented Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

The increase in the number of primary total hip arthroplasties that will be performed over the next several decades will lead to an increase in the incidence of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. A search of targeted articles was conducted using on-line databases of PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and articles were obtained from January 2008 to November 2021. Reliable prediction of treatment can be achieved using the Vancouver classification; internal fixation is indicated in fractures involving a stable implant and revision arthroplasty is indicated in those with unstable prostheses. To the best of our knowledge, relatively fewer studies regarding periprosthetic proximal femur fractures of cemented stems have been reported. The focus of this review is on the risk factors and strategies for treatment of these fractures for periprosthetic femoral fractures around a cemented hip arthroplasty.

Union rate, complication rate, and opioid usage after Vancouver B periprosthetic femur fractures: a comparison of fracture types.

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. 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 13years 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. 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 81years 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). 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. Prognostic level III.

Radiographic Outcomes of Cable-Plate versus Cable-Grip Fixation in Periprosthetic Fractures of the Proximal Femur

Newer generation cable-plate designs are commonly used for periprosthetic proximal femur fractures; however, comparisons relative to cable-grips remain limited. The aim of this study was to compare radiographic healing rates of cable-plate versus cable-grip fixation for periprosthetic proximal femur fractures. Consecutive patients with an acute or chronic Vancouver A, B1, or B2 periprosthetic proximal femur fracture undergoing trochanteric fixation with a cable-plate (n = 46 cases) or cable-grip (n = 24 cases) system were identified retrospectively from a single-centre hospital database (mean follow-up 28 months [range 6-89 months]). Demographics, radiographic fracture healing, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Radiographic union rates were not different between the cable-grip versus cable-plate group (67% vs. 76% respectively; p = 0.4). Healing rates of greater trochanteric fractures alone were not different between the cable-plate versus cable-grip groups (75% vs. 71% respectively; p = 0.38). The cable-plates were used for a more diverse range of fracture patterns relative to the cable-grips. An increased number of cables was associated with radiographic healing (odds ratio 14 [95% confidence interval 2-64]; p = 0.01), and body mass index had a negative correlation with radiographic healing (odds ratio -0.4 [95% confidence interval 0.5-0.9]. Similar rates of periprosthetic fracture healing were seen using a cable-grip versus cable-plate system; however, the cable-plate system could be used for a more diverse range of fracture patterns.

Angulated locking plate in periprosthetic proximal femur fractures: biomechanical testing of a new prototype plate

To improve proximal plate fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures, a prototype locking plate with proximal posterior angulated screw positioning was developed and biomechanically tested. Twelve fresh frozen, bone mineral density matched human femora, instrumented with cemented hip endoprosthesis were osteotomized simulating a Vancouver B1 fracture. Specimens were fixed proximally with monocortical (LCP) or angulated bicortical (A-LCP) head-locking screws. Biomechanical testing comprised quasi-static axial bending and torsion and cyclic axial loading until catastrophic failure with motion tracking. Axial bending and torsional stiffness of the A-LCP construct were (1,633 N/mm ± 548 standard deviation (SD); 0.75 Nm/deg ± 0.23 SD) at the beginning and (1,368 N/mm ± 650 SD; 0.67 Nm/deg ± 0.25 SD) after 10,000 cycles compared to the LCP construct (1,402 N/mm ± 272 SD; 0.54 Nm/deg ± 0.19 SD) at the beginning and (1,029 N/mm ± 387 SD; 0.45 Nm/deg ± 0.15) after 10,000 cycles. Relative movements for medial bending and axial translation differed significantly between the constructs after 5,000 cycles (A-LCP 2.09° ± 0.57 SD; LCP 5.02° ± 4.04 SD; p = 0.02; A-LCP 1.25 mm ± 0.33 SD; LCP 2.81 mm ± 2.32 SD; p = 0.02) and after 15,000 cycles (A-LCP 2.96° ± 0.70; LCP 6.52° ± 2.31; p = 0.01; A-LCP 1.68 mm ± 0.32; LCP 3.14 mm ± 0.68; p = 0.01). Cycles to failure (criterion 2 mm axial translation) differed significantly between A-LCP (15,500 ± 2,828 SD) and LCP construct (5,417 ± 7,236 SD), p = 0.03. Bicortical angulated screw positioning showed less interfragmentary osteotomy movement and improves osteosynthesis in periprosthetic fractures.