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.

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

INTRODUCTION: There 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 METHODS: All 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. RESULTS: 56 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. CONCLUSIONS: V-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 EVIDENCE: Historical cohorts. Level III.

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.

Neurological Injuries after Calcaneal Osteotomies Are Underdiagnosed.

The incidence of peripheral neurological injuries related to calcaneal osteotomies reported in the literature is low and often described as occasional. The main objective of this study is to determine the incidence of neurological injuries after calcaneal osteotomies and identify which nerve structures are most affected. This retrospective work included 69 patients. Medical records, surgical protocols, and radiographs were analyzed. All patients were summoned to perform current functional tests (EFAS score and SF-12), and a thorough physical examination was performed systematically and bilaterally. The total incidence of neurological injuries was 43.5% (30/69). The percentage of neurapraxias (transient injuries) was 8.7%, while 34.8% of patients presented neurological sequelae (permanent injuries). The most injured nerve or branch was, in decreasing order: sural nerve, medial plantar branch, lateral plantar branch and medial calcaneal branch. Following the so-called "safe zone" clearly decreases the incidence of sural nerve injury (p = 0.035). No significant differences were found between osteotomy site, number of screws, and type of closure and increased neurological injuries. No significant differences were found in the functional tests between the different techniques, nor between patients who presented neurological injuries and those who did not. Neurological injuries after calcaneal osteotomies are underdiagnosed and the incidence is higher than previously reported (43.5%). Such injuries mostly go unnoticed and have no implications in the functional results and patients' satisfaction.

"Safe incision" in calcaneal sliding osteotomies reduces the incidence of sural nerve injury.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate whether application of the so-called safe incision when performing calcaneal sliding osteotomies reduces the risk of sural nerve injury. METHODS: Patients who underwent either medial or lateral sliding calcaneal osteotomies between 2010 and 2018 were analysed retrospectively. A thorough neurological examination was performed, and the location of the surgical wound and the type of wound closure were recorded. The European Foot and Ankle Surgery (EFAS) score and 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) were also documented. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were included, of which 20 (35.1%) had a sural nerve injury. Five patients had a neurapraxia (8.8%), while 15 patients had a permanent injury (26.3%). Respecting the "safe incision" decreased sural nerve injury (p = 0.02). The type of osteotomy and closure was not significant. No significant differences were found in the functional tests between the different techniques, or between patients who presented sural nerve injury and those who did not. CONCLUSION: Sural nerve injury after calcaneal sliding osteotomies is higher than previously reported in the scientific literature, with an incidence of 35.1% (20/57 patients). Respecting the so-called safe zone (oblique incision that runs through the point that is > 1/3 of the distance from the tip of the lateral malleolus to the posteroinferior margin of the calcaneus) clearly decreases the incidence of sural nerve injury. Finally, the majority of patients remained asymptomatic despite the neurological injury.