Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures after Hip Arthroplasty

Although the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty is expected to increase, these complex fractures are still challenging complications. To obtain optimal results for these fractures, thorough clinical and radiographic evaluation, precise classification, and understanding of modern management principles are mandatory. The Vancouver classification system is a simple, effective, and reproducible method for planning proper treatments of these injuries. The fractures associated with a stable femoral stem can be effectively treated with osteosynthesis, though periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with a loose stem require revision arthroplasty. We describe here the principles of proper treatment for the patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures as well as how to avoid complications.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Following Hip Arthroplasty / 대한고관절학회지

PURPOSE: This study was performed to assess potential improvements in clinical outcomes when applying recent advanced hip arthroplasty surgical techniques and understand the potential relationship between bone mineral density (BMD) and surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 37 cases of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty treated between March 2014 and September 2016, all included a follow-up of at least one year and were included in this study. Outcomes were evaluated using the Beals and Tower's criteria. BMD was examined in 27 of 37 cases and the relationship between osteoporosis and treatment outcomes was analyzed. Advanced hip arthroplasty surgical approaches varied depending on the fracture type: i) open reduction with wiring for Vancouver A, ii) open reduction with double plate fixation for Vancouver B1, iii) revision THA with long stem for Vancouver B1-Nonunion, B2 and B3, and iv) open reduction with double plate fixation for Vancouver C. RESULTS: When assessed using the Beals and Tower's criteria, 33 out of 37 (89.2%) patients were excellent and 4 (10.8%) were poor. These outcomes were an improvement compared with series I (81.8%). When analyzed according to the Vancouver classification, patients with type A (n=8), type B1 (n=16), and type B2 (n=2) were all excellent, the patients with type B3 were excellent (n=1) and poor (n=1), and the patients with type C were excellent (n=6) and poor (n=3). The mean BMD was −2.6 (T-score) in 27 of 37 cases and −4.4 in 4 cases with poor prognosis. Osteoporosis was statistically correlated to those classified as poor by Beals and Tower. CONCLUSION: The results of the analysis suggest that applying new surgical hip arthroplasty treatment approaches leads to improved outcomes compared with the author's previous study. When treating periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty, an appropriate internal fixation method should be selected, at least in part based on the Vancouver classification. In addition, osteoporosis may be a major prognostic factor for the outcomes of surgical treatment.

Treatment Results of a Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Case Series: Treatment Method for Vancouver Type B2 Fractures Can Be Customized

BACKGROUND: Currently, an algorithmic approach for deciding treatment options according to the Vancouver classification is widely used for treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. However, this treatment algorithm based on the Vancouver classification lacks consideration of patient physiology and surgeon's experience (judgment), which are also important for deciding treatment options. The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment results and discuss the treatment options using a case series. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive cases with periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed. A locking compression plate system was used for osteosynthesis during the study period. The fracture type was determined by the Vancouver classification. The treatment algorithm based on the Vancouver classification was generally applied, but was modified in some cases according to the surgeon's judgment. The reasons for modification of the treatment algorithm were investigated. Mobility status, ambulatory status, and social status were assessed before the fracture and at the latest follow-up. Radiological results including bony union and stem stability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen cases were treated by osteosynthesis, two by revision arthroplasty and three by conservative treatment. Four cases of type B2 fractures with a loose stem, in which revision arthroplasty is recommended according to the Vancouver classification, were treated by other options. Of these, three were treated by osteosynthesis and one was treated conservatively. The reasons why the three cases were treated by osteosynthesis were technical difficulty associated with performance of revision arthroplasty owing to severe central migration of an Austin-Moore implant in one case and subsequent severe hip contracture and low activity in two cases. The reasons for the conservative treatment in the remaining case were low activity, low-grade pain, previous wiring around the fracture and light weight. All patients obtained primary bony union and almost fully regained their prior activities. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest reaching a decision regarding treatment methods of periprosthetic femoral fractures by following the algorithmic approach of the Vancouver classification in addition to the assessment of each patient's hip joint pathology, physical status and activity, especially for type B2 fractures. The customized treatments demonstrated favorable overall results.

Femoral Stem Revision for Vancouver type B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Fractures / 대한정형외과학회잡지

PURPOSE: We evaluated the outcome of femoral stem revision for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective assessment of 15 patients who had received treatment for a periprosthetic unstable femoral fracture after primary hip arthroplasty between May 1997 and September 2009. According to Vancouver classification, 11 patients were type B2 and four were B3. Open reduction and long stem revision were performed in all 15 cases. In Vancouver type B3 fractures, we treated patients with open reduction and long stem revision with an allogenic cancellous bone graft, which is the same as in that used in Vancouver type B2 fractures. An allogenic onlay cortical bone graft was used when additional stability was required. The mean age of patients was 67.1 years at the time of surgery and the mean duration of follow-up was 31.5 months. We described the clinical and radiographic results. RESULTS: Using Beals and Tower's criteria, fair to good clinical and radiologic results were observed at the latest follow up, with an average Harris hip score of 94.4 points. Fractures were united in all 15 patients. One patient had non-union of the greater trochanter of the femur, one patient had superficial infection, and one patient had non-union of onlay bone graft, however, there were no further complications, such as dislocations, periprosthetic infections, or nerve injuries. There was no loosening of the femoral stems. CONCLUSION: In Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures, when there is loosening of the femoral stems, open reduction and long stem revision with allogenic cancellous bone graft provided a satisfactory result. However, long-term follow up is needed.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the radiological and clinical results of our study subjects according to the management algorithm of the Vancouver classification system for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures in hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 18 hips with postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures. The average follow-up was 49 months. The fracture type was determined based on the Vancouver classification system. The management algorithm of the Vancouver classification system was generally applied, but it was modified in some cases according to the surgeon's decision. At the final follow-up, we assessed the radiological results using Beals and Tower's criteria. The functional results were also evaluated by calculating the Harris hip scores. RESULTS: Seventeen of 18 cases (94.4%) achieved primary union at an average of 25.5 weeks. The mean Harris hip score was 92. There was 1 case of nonunion, which was a type C fracture after cemented total hip arthroplasty, and this required a strut allograft. Subsidence was noted in 1 case, but the fracture was united despite the subsidence. There was no other complication. CONCLUSIONS: Although we somewhat veered out of the management algorithm of the Vancouver classification system, the customized treatment, with considering the stability of the femoral stem and the configuration of the fracture, showed favorable overall results.

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures after Hip Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing. In a periprosthetic femoral fracture, treatment is difficult and complications are common. The result of total hip arthroplasty becomes poor. The study sought to determine the cause and risk factors of periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip arthroplasty, and discusses treatment according to the guidelines of the Vancouver classification.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures after Hip Arthroplasty / 대한정형외과학회잡지

PURPOSE: To determine results of treatment according to the guidelines of the Vancouver classification in periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 44 cases of periproshtetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty treated between Aug. 1991 and Feb. 2008, thirty-two cases with minimum follow-up greater than one year were included. Outcomes were evaluated using the Beals and Tower's critieria. RESULTS: Outcomes were excellent in 27 cases, and poor in 5 cases. Four of 5 cases with poor result were due to non-union. Three cases were treated with internal fixation and 1 case was treated with a conservative method. One case with a poor result was due to loosening of the cemented stem of a Vancouver type B1 fracture. Loosening of the stem after mid to long term follow up occurred in an additional 4 cases (3 cases with a cemented stem in a type B1 fracture, 1 case with a cemented stem of a type C fracture). Loosened stems were revised with a long revision stem. CONCLUSION: For type B1 periprosthetic fractures around a cementless stem, and for type B2, type B3 periprosthetic fractures, treatment according to the guidelines of the Vancouver classification showed excellent results. However, type B1 periprosthetic fractures around a cemented stem showed poor results with non-union or stem loosening. Hence, more rigid fixation using a bone graft or revision of the stem is needed. In type C periprosthetic fractures in osteoporotic patients, closer attentions is needed to avoid complications.

Treatment of Vancouver B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

Purpose: To evaluate respectively the clinical results after femoral stem exchange or retention in the treatment of Vancouver B2, B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Materials and Methods: Nineteen cases of Vancouver B2 fractures and 8 cases of B3 fractures that were treated surgically between January 1992 to October 2004 were reviewed. There were 15 retained stems (group A) and 12 exchanged stems (group B). Firm fixation of a fracture and stem with a plate, screw and cable was performed in both groups. The HHS and criteria of Beals and Tower was used for the clinical and radiological evaluation. Results: The mean HHS was 84 in group A and 85 in group B. Unsatisfactory (<80 HHS) results were obtained in 2 cases from each group. The radiological results were excellent in both groups with the exception of one case of femoral stem loosening in group A and one case of non-union in group B. The complications encountered were 1 case of femoral stem loosening, 1 case of non-union, 1 case of a superficial infection, 1 case of dislocation, and 1 case of cup loosening. Conclusion: Stable fixation of the fracture and stem with a sufficient bone graft in the treatment of Vancouver B2, B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures can produce favorable clinical results regardless of the level of femoral exchange.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractureaccording to the Vancouver Classification / 대한정형외과학회잡지

PURPOSE: To determine the treatment results according to the guideline of the Vancouver classification in periprosthetic femoral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five periprosthetic femoral fractures treated between May 1981 and February 2003 were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 56 years (30-83 years). The outcomes were estimated according to the Beals and Tower's criteria. RESULTS: The overall incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture was 0.91%. The frequency of the fracture types in decreasing order was B1, B2, B3, C, AG and AL. The treatment outcomes according to the Vancouver guidelines were excellent in 27 hips, good in 5 hips and poor in 3 hips. Suspicious risk factors of periprosthetic fractures were found in 6 hips (osteoporosis in 4 hips, osteolysis in 1 hip and loosening of femoral stem in 1 hip). Complications related to the treatment included a bony defect in 1 hip and an infection with non-union in 1 hip. The complications related to treatment for an implant were loosening in 2 hips and subsidence of stem in 1 hip. CONCLUSION: In order to obtain favorable results, in addition to following the Vancouver treatment guideline, consideration should be made to the basic principles such as the stability of the fractures, the stability of the implant and restoration of the bone stock.