Treatment Of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Research Articles

Long stem revision versus short stem revision with plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture: a comparative study of eighty five cases.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) around the hip are challenging complications in orthopaedic surgery, particularly Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. The surgical management of these fractures is crucial and depends on various factors. Cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis is an alternative surgical technique. This study aims to compare the outcomes of this surgical technique with revision arthroplasty (RA) with long stem in the treatment of VTB2 PPFs. This retrospective study was conducted in a single medical institute from February 2010 to May 2019. Patients who had received either total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty and subsequently developed a VTB2 PPF were included; patients who sustained intra-operative fractures or received a cemented stem previously were excluded from the analysis. The patients were divided into two groups: group I received RA with cementless long stem, while group II underwent RA with cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis. Demographic data, radiographic and functional outcomes, and complications were analyzed between the two groups. A total of 85 patients diagnosed with VTB2 PPFs were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic data, including age, gender, mean follow-up times, estimated blood loss, and operative times. The radiographic results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence and implant stability between the two groups. However, group II tended to have less subsidence and periprosthetic osteolysis. Patients in group II had significantly better functional scores (mean Harris hip score: post-operative: 60.2 in group I and 66.7 in group ii; last follow-up: 77.4 in group 1 and 83.2 in group II (both p < 0.05)). There were no significant differences in the overall complication rate, including infection, dislocation, re-fracture, and revision surgery, between the two groups. Both surgical techniques, cementless long stem and cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis, are effective in the treatment of Vancouver B2 PPFs, with no significant differences in outcomes or complications. However, patients in cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis had better functional scores at both post-operative and the last follow-up.

Predictive factors for reoperation after periprosthetic femoral fracture: A retrospective multicenter (TRON) study

BackgroundThe surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) can be technically demanding and it is associated with high rates of complications and repeat surgery. However, repeat surgery is uncommon and few studies have examined survival and the functional prognosis following reoperation after the surgical treatment of PFF. We aimed to estimate the rate of reoperation for any reason, to determine the survival rate after reoperation for PFF, and to identify predictors associated with reoperation after PFF surgery in a multicenter (TRON group) study. MethodsTwo hundred forty-six patients were admitted for treatment of PFF. After excluding patients managed conservatively and those with Vancouver type A fracture, we analyzed 184 patients. Unadjusted risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and multiple logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted RRs. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to create survival curves and a log-rank test to determine survival from the date of repeat surgery. ResultsFifteen of the 184 patients (8.2 %) underwent reoperation after PFF surgery. The 1-year survival rate after reoperation for PFF was 66.7 % (11 of 15). Vancouver B3 and Vancouver C were identified as independent risk factors for reoperation after PFF surgery (Vancouver B3: Risk ratio [RR] 19.0, 95 % CI 1.10–329 P < 0.001; Vancouver C: RR 13.3, 95 % CI 1.4–123.0, P = 0.023). ConclusionThe reoperation rate after PFF surgery and the mortality after reoperation PFF surgery were relatively high. The fracture type is associated with reoperation after PFF surgery.

Biomechanics of PHILOS plates in Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture.

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of PHILOS plates in the treatment of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) and to validate its biomechanical reliability via finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models. Methods: Ten males and eight females with Vancouver B1 PFF who underwent PHILOS plate fixation between September 2017 and January 2022 were selected. The average age was 72.61 ± 8.19years, with a range of 57-86years old. X-ray films were taken to assess the fracture healing situation around the femoral prosthesis as well as the position of the PHILOS plates and femoral prosthesis. Two different plates (the PHILOS plate and the Cable GTR plate) were used for fixation, and the differences in biomechanical stability of the two fixation methods were compared using finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models to validate the biomechanical dependability of the PHILOS plate. Results: All 18 cases were followed for at least 1year, as a result. The average period of follow-up was 17months, ranging from 12 to 36months. At the most recent follow-up, Harris scores for the hip joints of patients ranged from 82 to 89, with an average score of 86. The X-rays revealed that all fractures surrounding the femoral prosthesis had healed and that there was no looseness in the femoral prosthesis. None of the PHILOS license plates had expired. All patients were able to perform full-load walking, and pain and claudication in affected limbs were significantly reduced. Finite element analysis and mechanical testing of the Synbone femoral model revealed that the fixation effect of the PHILOS group was superior to that of the Cable group; consequently, PHILOS plates can be used to effectively fix fractures around the proximal femoral prosthesis. Conclusion: PHILOS plates are initially used in the treatment of Vancouver B1 PFF, which may be a good choice due to their simpler operation, lower medical costs, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.

Outcomes of modular stem for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture: a systematic review of the literature.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are a frequent complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both modular and non-modular tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems could be used in total hip revisions (THRs). Nevertheless, the most appropriate femoral stem type is still under debate. The current systematic review aims to analyze the survival rate and all causes of stem revision, the overall complication rate and reason for reoperation, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in THR for PFF using the modular tapered titanium stems (MTTS). A comprehensive search in four databases, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases, was performed, and following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, starting from 1,259 studies. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the MINORS tool system. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for all data extracted. Eighteen clinical studies were included in the qualitative analysis for a total of 775 patients enrolled. A mean MINORS criteria score of 9.8 [8-12] was reported. The overall survival of MTTS for PFF treatment was 95.4%, with an overall reintervention rate of 10.3% at an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Despite the use of modular components, postoperative hip instability remains the most frequent complication and cause of reintervention in these patients. In addition, a mean postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) of 78.1 was reported, which was considered acceptable given the high mean age of 74.1 years at the time of the revision. Several therapeutic approaches and a wide variety of implants have been described in the literature for PFF management; however, no one solution has proven superior to others in the PFF treatment. MTTS has become a commonly used treatment option for Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures because they provide good clinical and radiological results with a reasonable survival rate. However, the complication rate of MTTS is still high.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Modular Fluted Tapered Stem for a Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. AP = anteroposteriorMFT = modular fluted tapered (stem)ETO = extended trochanteric osteotomyTHA = total hip arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyPJI = periprosthetic joint infection.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures after Total Hip Replacement. Literature Review

Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures are a serious problematic complication after primary and revision hip replacements. These fractures are associated with adverse outcomes, heavy mortality and often incomplete functional recovery.The aim of this review article is to study the frequency and factors that contribute to the occurrence of peri-prosthetic fractures of the proximal femur (PFPF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). In order to achieve this goal, we conduct a comprehensive search in medical literature in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in order to familiarize with publications related to PPFF, their frequency and risk factors. The study showed that the frequency of PPFF after primary THA is generally lower than after revision, both for intraoperative and postoperative cases of PPFF. The frequency of intraoperative fractures varies from 0.1% to 27.8%, and postoperative fractures from 0.07% to 18%. Bone loss, rheumatoid joint inflammation, surgical technique of open treatment, the use of cementless stem and revision hip arthroplasty are predisposing factors for intraoperative PPFFs. In the case of postoperative PPFF, significant risk factors are old age, female gender, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, bone loss and rheumatoid joint inflammation, deformities of the proximal femal bone, previous operations on the affected hip joint, the type of implant (especially cementless stems and molds).Key words: endoprosthesis replacement, periprosthetic fracture, femur, proximal femur, hip joint, osteosynthesis.

A comparison of distal femoral replacement versus fixation in treating periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a total knee replacement remains a technical challenge for the orthopedic surgeon. Management options include non-operative treatment, plate fixation, intramedullary nailing and distal femur replacement (DFR), with few studies comparing fixation with DFR. This is an up-to-date meta-analysis in the literature to directly compare clinical outcomes between fixation and distal femoral replacement in the treatment of supracondylar periprosthetic femur fractures. A stratified literature search of the Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was performed. All studies in English language were searched from inception to July 2022. The search was performed with the following MeSH terms: Periprosthetic fracture AND ORIF OR Internal Fixation AND Distal Femur Replacement. The search was conducted using a predesigned search strategy where all eligible literature was critically appraised for methodological quality using the Cochrane collaboration tool. We included Level I, II and III studies comparing fixation with DFR in the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures. Data from eligible studies were extracted by two authors (NP and AR) and a table created which included author, year, sample size, mean age, measured parameters, follow-up period, fracture classification, length of stay (days), mortality rate, revision rate and complication rate. The extracted data were pooled for meta-analysis using RevMan® v5.3.5 software (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) and forest plots constructed. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and confidence intervals (CI) set to 95%. A total of six studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 406). 153 patients underwent distal femur replacement and 253 patients underwent fixation with a mean follow-up time of 71.4months. The results of this analysis suggest no statistically significant difference in measured outcomes. The results of this meta-analysis suggest no proven statistically significant difference between DFR and fixation in terms of length of hospital stay, mortality rate, revision rate and complication rate for the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures. Further prospective randomized research may help to define the specific indications for each treatment option which must include fracture configuration. Early functional outcome and cost-effectiveness have yet to be evaluated in the available literature.

Risk factors for complications within 30 days of operatively fixed periprosthetic femur fractures

BackgroundWith a rising number of periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFFs) each year, the primary objective of our study was to quantify risk factors that predict complications following operative treatment of PPFFs. MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 231 patients with a periprosthetic femur fracture was conducted at an Academic, Level 1 Trauma Center. The main outcome measurement of interest was complications, as defined by the ACS-NSQIP, within 30 days of surgery. Results56 patients had 96 complications. Bivariate analyses revealed ASA score, preoperative ambulatory status, length of stay, discharge disposition, time from admission to surgery, length of surgery, perioperative change in hemoglobin, Charlson comorbidity index, cerebral vascular accident/transient ischemic attack, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and receipt of a blood transfusion were associated with development of a complication (p < 0.1). Multivariate logistic regression showed length of stay (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.19; p = 0.006), receipt of a blood transfusion (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.14–5.42; p = 0.02), and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.03–4.56; p = 0.04) remained independently predictive of complication. ConclusionsLength of stay, receipt of a blood transfusion, and diabetes were associated with increased perioperative risk for developing a complication following operative treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures. Methods to decrease length of stay or transfusion rates may mitigate complication risk in these patients. Level of EvidencePrognostic, Level III

Сучасні тенденції лікування перипротезних переломів стегнової кістки

Проведено аналіз застосування сучасних методик остеосинтезу перипротезних переломів стегнової кістки. Розглянуто 27 різноманітних випадків із цими переломами. Підкреслена важливість Ванкуверської класифікації для кращого розуміння біомеханічної ситуації. Наведено 6 цікавих випадків остеосинтезу перипротезних переломів, що мають науковий і практичний інтерес.

Large Locking Fusion Plate and Cable Fixation in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture (PFF) After Total Hip Arthroplasty

<i>Objective</i> To investigate the clinical effect of large locking fusion plate and cable fixation in the treatment of Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA). <i>Methods </i>Clinical data of 15 cases of PFF after THA treated with large locking fusion plate and cable fixation from June 2012 to June 2019 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. These cases included 4 males and 11 females, whose age were 61-82 years old, with an average age of 71.3 years, 6 cases on the left side and 9 cases on the right side. We performed total hip arthroplasty in 10 patients and hemiarthroplasty in 5 patients. There were 5 cases of Type B1 fracture, 8 cases of type B2 fracture, and 2 cases of type B3 fracture. Preoperative and postoperative hip function, HSS score, Harris score and surgical complications were observed and evaluated. <i>Results </i>15 patients were followed up 15-77 months after the operation (mean 36.9 months), and the hip function was significantly improved. The preoperative HSS score of knee function was 4.13±1.69, and the postoperative HSS score of knee function was 90.93±3.06, with11 excellent cases, 4 good cases and 0 general cases, with an excellent rate of 100%. Preoperative Harris score of knee function was 3.73±1.16. Harris score of hip function was 89.33±3.73 at the last follow-up. Among of all Harris scores, 10 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good, and 2 cases were general, with an excellent rate of 86.7%. Postoperative HHS and Harris scores were higher than those before surgery (P=0.031, P<0.001). No blood vessel or nerve injury occurred during the operation. During the postoperative follow-up, no complications such as periprosthetic infection, loosening, dislocation, nonunion of fracture and refracture occurred in 14 cases, and one case suffered refracture after the operation, which was healed after the nail and stick system fixation. <i>Conclusion</i> The application of large locking fusion plate and cable in the treatment of femoral periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty is simple, easy to operate, less complications, satisfactory clinical results, and worthy of promotion.

Treatment of Vancouver Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Using Cortical Strut Allografts.

IntroductionThe optimal surgical treatment for Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures has not been determined, and bone defects and delays in fracture healing significantly affect treatment outcomes. Some authors have argued that when a serious bone defect is present, the use of cortical strut allografts for the treatment of type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) after hip joint replacement may be beneficial. This study aimed to determine the usefulness of cortical strut allografts based on mid-to long-term clinical radiologic results after surgical treatment of Vancouver B-type PFFs.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 48 patients with postoperative PFFs. The mean duration of follow-up was 6.7 years. The 22 patients were treated with cortical strut allograft. Each case was characterized and described in detail, including the length of allograft and the union period, and possible correlations between allograft length and strut-to-host bone union were analyzed. Clinical evaluations included Parker mobility and Harris hip scores. At the final follow-up, we assessed the radiological results using the Beals and Tower’s criteria, stem subsidence, and fracture union time.ResultsAll 48 fractures united at an average of 21.5 weeks, and strut-to-host bone union was typically observed within 32 months. No positive correlation was identified between the allograft length and incorporation period. There was one deep infection and four cases of dislocation, but there was no fracture or malunion of the cortical strut allografts. No evidence of femoral loosening was observed in any of the patients.ConclusionCortical strut allografts used to treat type B PFFs showed high rates of bone union and survival. In mid-to long-term follow-up, the cortical strut allograft length did not affect to incorporation time. The author concluded that cortical strut allografts are useful treatment for PFFs regardless subtype classification of the Vancouver type B.

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip replacement; A Case Series

Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are not very uncommon. At present the Vancouver classification provides management algorithm for deciding treatment options but treatment options may vary between surgeons, where as in this study most patients managed were according to Vancouver classification management algorithm. The most common treatment modality for treating periprosthetic femoral fractures around a well-fixed stem is with osteosynthesis, but fracture with loose stem requires revision arthroplasty and fracture with poor bone requires bone graft augmentation. Methods: We reviewed 21 consecutive cases with periprosthetic femoral fractures in association with THA between June 2018 and December 2020. Locking and non locking compression plates, wires, cables system were used for osteosynthesis. Most of fractures were managed according to Vancouver classification management algorithm but modified in some cases according to the surgeon’s skills and judgment. Results: According to Vancouver classification, two patients had AL fractures, two patients had AG fractures, twelve Patients had B1, five patients had B2, two patients had B3 and one patient had type C fracture. Of these two cases were treated by conservatively, sixteen cases were treated by osteosynthesis, three cases by revision arthroplasty. Conclusion: The careful analysis of implant stability and fracture patterns is crucial for the optimal treatment of Periprosthetic femoral fractures. Expert Surgeon’s skills are needed to deal with periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture after total knee arthroplasty—external fixation and ROM—

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture after total knee arthroplasty—external fixation and ROM—

Long Low-profile Proximal Tibial Locking Plate for the Fixation of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Above the Prosthesis: A Pilot Study

Background: Anatomic distal femoral plates locking compression plate (LCP) are generally used for the fixation of distal femoral fractures. However, they are not suitable for periprosthetic femoral fracture after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), mainly owing to the impingement with prosthesis. Objectives: In this case series, we report the outcome of proximal tibial LCP fixation in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture after TKA. Patients and Methods: Twelve patients with a periprosthetic femoral fracture who underwent surgical treatment were included. According to Su et al. classification, all fractures were type II, originating from the femoral component with proximal extending. Fractures were managed with open reduction and plate fixation. The plate choice was either a long low-profile proximal tibial LCP (n=9) or a short anatomic distal femoral LCP (n=3). Results: The study population included one male and 11 females with a mean age of 74.5±9.3 years and a mean follow-up of 2.8±1.3 years. Union of fracture was observed in all fractures that were fixed with a long locking plate during a mean period of 3.1±2.1 months. Fixation failed in all three patients who were managed with a short plate. These patients underwent revision surgery with a long low-profile proximal tibial LCP. In one of them, the fixation failed again and finally fixed with tumor prosthesis. The other two fractures were united with no complications. Conclusion: Long low-profile proximal tibial LCP omits the problem of impingement by prosthesis, which is caused by short anatomic distal femoral LCP in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures above the prosthesis. However, future large-scale comparative studies are required before we can recommend it for routine implications in these fractures.

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: results of an online survey of the European Hip Society.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both trauma and adult reconstruction surgeons or combined teams treat these fractures following management algorithms. The aim of this study is to investigate the current treatment of PPF by members of the European Hip Society (EHS). An online survey of the members of the European Hip Society (EHS) was conducted. 20 cases of periprosthetic fracture were presented and surgeons were asked to answer questions regarding classification, treatment and postoperative treatment protocol. A total of 132 (130 male; 2 female) EHS members responded. Mean years in surgical practice was 18.8 (min. 1 year; max. 50 years). The preferred surgical method was combined open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (30.3%) for AG fractures, ORIF with cables (30.4%) for AL fractures, combined ORIF (cable and plate) for B1 fractures (49.2%), stem revision with cables for B2 fractures (73.1%), stem revision with cables for B3 (55.9%) fractures and combined ORIF (cable and plate: 55.5%) for C fractures. Surprisingly, 10.8% suggested various stem revision techniques for B1 and 17.4% for C fractures. Strong variations were observed regarding postoperative weight-bearing protocol. A strong consensus was found for the choice of conservative or surgical treatment of the different PPF types according to the Vancouver Classification. Various stem revision techniques were the preferred surgical techniques for Vancouver B2 (91.2%) and B3 (88.6%) fractures. However, for postoperative weight-bearing, when the ORIF technique was used, a significant variation of protocols was found.

Surgical outcomes of dual-plate fixation for periprosthetic femur fractures around a stable hip arthroplasty stem.

The incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures is increasing. Multiple treatment methods exist to treat fractures surrounding stable hip arthroplasty implants including locking plate fixation, cable fixation, allograft augmentation, and revision arthroplasty. No consensus regarding optimal treatment has been reached, and significant complications remain. Recently, biomechanical studies have demonstrated the benefits of orthogonal dual-plate fixation, but little clinical data exist. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of dual-plated periprosthetic femur fractures around stable hip stems. Patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following hip arthroplasty with a stable femoral stem treated with dual-plate fixation were identified through chart review at a single institution. Fracture classification, fixation characteristics, radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes and complications including re-operation were recorded. Over a 12-year period, 31 patients (mean age 77 years at surgery, range 48-94) underwent dual plating by three traumatologists for implant-stable periprosthetic femur fractures surrounding a hip arthroplasty stem. There were 27 Vancouver B1-type and 9 inter-prosthetic fractures. Average follow-up was 2 years. Of the 26 patients with minimum 6-month follow-up, 24 (92%) united after index surgery (mean time to union 6.0 months, range 1.5-14.0). Mean time to full weight-bearing post-operatively was 2.6 months (range 1.5-4.0 months). Two patients required secondary surgery to address nonunion. Dual-plating achieved high union rates with an acceptable complication profile for the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures surrounding a stable hip arthroplasty stem. Our preferred fixation construct involves a lateral plate spanning the entire femur secured with non-locking bicortical screws supplemented with an anteriorly based reconstruction plate. Additional prospective research is required to confirm the results of this study.

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.

Periprosthetic fractures in the hip joint – own study by the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology in Kalisz

Every year, the number of total hip replacement treatments increases and along with it, so does the number of local and systemic complications, including periprosthetic fractures. These fractures usually occur among elderly people with deteriorated bone quality and other general and neurological disorders. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures imposes a difficult and complex medical problem, which requires adequate experience and a rational combination of traumatological and orthopedical knowledge from the surgeon. In this article we review management of periprosthetic femoral fractures in the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology in Kalisz.

Analysis of the effect of surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip replacement

To analyze and compare the clinical efficacy of different types of surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture(PFF) after hip arthroplasty (HA). From September 2010 to September 2016, 47 patients (47 hips) with periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty were retrospectively analyzed, including 13 males and 34 females. According to Vancouver classification, there were 2 patients with type AG, 17 patients with type B1, 19 patients with type B2, 7 patients with type B3 and 2 patients with type C. The age of patients ranged from 56 to 94 (71.5±8.3) years. After admission, nutritional risk screening (NRS2002) was used to assess the nutritionalstatus of the patients. Eighteen patients (38%) had malnutrition risk (NRS>3 points). After admission, the patients were given corresponding surgical treatment according to different types. Intraoperative blood loss was recorded. Harris score was used to evaluate the hip function. VAS pain score was performed on admission and after operation. All the 47 patients were followed up for 19 to 62 (34±11) months. The Harris scores were (41.8±12.1) and (89.0±2.6) respectively before and 1 year after operation, and the difference was statistically significant (t=29.7, P<0.01). The VAS pain scores were (8.0±0.6) and (0.5±0.6) respectively before and 1 year after operation, and the difference was statistically significant(t=80.7, P<0.01). The intraoperative blood loss was (730±68) ml and (688±127) ml in patients with type B1 malnutrition risk and patients without malnutrition risk, and the difference was statistically significant (t=4.6, P<0.05);the intraoperative blood loss was (916±118) ml and (884±88) ml in patients with type B2 malnutrition risk and patients without malnutrition risk, and the difference was statistically significant (t=8.7, P<0.05). At the last follow-up, all the fractures were healed and the force line of lower limbs was good. No loosening, displacement, fracture of internal fixation, loosening and dislocation of prosthesis occurred during the follow-up period. The treatment of hip periprosthetic fracture patients should be based on the general situation of patients, imaging data, intraoperative correction classification, etc. to develop individualized treatment plan in line with patients. For patients with preoperative malnutrition risk, preoperative nutritional intervention may reduce intraoperative bleeding.

Periprosthetic Femur Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does the Mode of Failure Correlate With Classification?

BackgroundPeriprosthetic femur fracture is one of the most common indications for reoperation after total hip arthroplasty. Our objectives were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation after the surgical treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures and to compare the mechanisms of failure between fractures around a stable femoral component and those with an unstable femoral component. MethodsWe identified a consecutive series of 196 surgically treated periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty between 2008 and 2017. Mean age was 72 years (range, 29-96 years), and 108 (55%) were women. The femoral component was unstable in 127 cases (65%) and stable in the remaining 69 cases (35%). Mean follow-up was 2 years. ResultsThe 2-year cumulative probability of any reoperation was 19%. The most common indication for reoperation among the cases with a stable femoral component was nonunion, and the most common indication for reoperation among the cases with an unstable femoral component was infection. Fractures that originated at the distal aspect of the femoral component were associated with a high risk of nonunion (6 of 28 cases, P < .01) and reoperation (9 of 28 cases, P = .03). ConclusionSurgeons should take measures to mitigate the failure modes that are distinct based on fracture type. The high infection rate after surgical management of B2 fracture suggests that additional antiseptic precautions may be warranted. For B1 fractures, particularly those originating near the distal aspect of the femoral component, augmenting fixation with orthogonal plating, spanning the entire femur, or revising the stem in cases of poor proximal bone should be considered.