There have been few reports of long stem cemented revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures (PPFs). The purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between osteosynthesis and long stem cemented revision arthroplasty for PPFs.
Methods:
This study retrospectively evaluated 29 femurs who underwent surgical treatment for PPF following total or bipolar hip arthroplasty. The mean duration of clinical follow-up was 5.0 (range 2–12) years. Surgical options included osteosynthesis only in 7 femurs (Group O) and long stem cemented revision arthroplasty in 22 femurs (Group R).
Results:
Repeat surgeries due to implant failure were performed in 2 (29%) and 1 (5%) in groups O and R, respectively. In the walking component of the mean Merle d'Aubigné clinical score at the last follow-up, there were significant differences between the groups. Mean time to independent cane walking was 24.0 (13.1−42.3) weeks and 7.2 (2.0−15.6) weeks in groups O and R, respectively (p < 0.05). Bone union rates were 71% and 95% in groups O and R, respectively (p = 0.14). Where bone union was successfully achieved, the mean time to bone union was 12.2 (6.1−22.2) months in group O and 6.6 (1.7−12.5) months in group R (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
The time to independent cane walking and bone union was significantly shorter for long stem cemented revision arthroplasty. This procedure offers considerable advantages for patients, despite the difficulty of the procedure for surgeons.
LindahlHGarellickGRegnérH, et al. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 1215–1222.
2.
IllgenRLLewallenDGYepPJ, et al. Migration patterns for revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States as reported in the American joint replacement registry. J Arthroplasty2021; 36: 1401–1406.
3.
MarslandDMearsSC.A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil2012; 3: 107–120.
DuncanCPMasriBA.Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect1995; 44: 293–304.
6.
StoffelKBlauthMJoerisA, et al. Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2020; 140: 1381–1394.
7.
COMPOSE Study Team. Management and outcomes of femoral periprosthetic fractures at the hip: data from the characteristics, outcomes and management of periprosthetic fracture service evaluation (COMPOSE) cohort study. Bone Joint J2022; 104-B: 997–1008.
8.
LewisDPTarrantSMCornfordL, et al. Management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, revision total hip arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma2022; 36: 7–16.
9.
ThalerMWeissCLechnerR, et al. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: results of an online survey of the European Hip Society. Hip Int2023; 33: 126–132.
10.
YasenATHaddadFS. The management of type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: when to fix and when to revise. Int Orthop2015; 39: 1873–1879.
11.
DehghanNMcKeeMDNauthA, et al. Surgical fixation of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femur fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma2014; 28: 721–727.
12.
SierraRJCharityJTsiridisE, et al. The use of long cemented stems for femoral impaction grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 1330–1336.
13.
HowieDWWimhurstJAMcGeeMA, et al. Revision total hip replacement using cemented collarless double-taper femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89: 879–886.
14.
SolomonLBCostiKKosugeD, et al. Revision total hip arthroplasty using cemented collarless double-taper femoral components at a mean follow-up of 13 years (8 to 20): an update. Bone Joint J2015; 97-B: 1038–1045.
15.
MaggsJLSwantonEWhitehouseSL, et al. B2 or not B2? That is the question: a review of periprosthetic fractures around cemented taper-slip femoral components. Bone Joint J2021; 103-B: 71–78.
16.
Powell-BownsMFROagENgN, et al. Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures involving the Exeter cemented stem. Bone Joint J2021; 103-B: 309–320.
17.
WeissRJStarkAKärrholmJ.A modular cementless stem vs. cemented long-stem prostheses in revision surgery of the hip: a population-based study from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop2011; 82: 136–142.
18.
PavlouGPanteliadisPMacdonaldD, et al. A review of 202 periprosthetic fractures–stem revision and allograft improves outcome for type B fractures. Hip Int2011; 21: 21–29.
19.
MoazenMMakJHEtchelsLW, et al. Periprosthetic femoral fracture–a biomechanical comparison between Vancouver type B1 and B2 fixation methods. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 495–500.
20.
TsiridisENarvaniAATimperleyJA, et al. Dynamic compression plates for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures: a 3-year follow-up of 18 cases. Acta Orthop2005; 76: 531–537.
21.
HarrisWHMcCarthyJCJrO’NeillDA.Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am1982; 64: 1063–1067.
22.
CookREJenkinsPJWalmsleyPJ, et al. Risk factors for periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008; 466: 1652–1656.
23.
LaurerHLWutzlerSPossnerS, et al. Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2011; 131: 983–989.
24.
JoestlJHofbauerMLangN, et al. Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Injury2016; 47: 939–943.
25.
KhanTGrindlayDOllivereBJ, et al. A systematic review of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B(Suppl. B): 17–25.
26.
ChatziagorouGLindahlHKärrholmJ.Surgical treatment of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures: patient characteristics and outcomes of 1381 fractures treated in Sweden between 2001 and 2011. Bone Joint J2019; 101-B: 1447–1458.
27.
ZhengHGuHShaoH, et al. Treatment and outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J2020; 102-B: 293–300.
28.
HaiderTHannaPMohamadiA, et al. Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver type-B2. JBJS Rev2021; 9: e.21.00008.
29.
González-MartínDHernández-CastillejoLEHerrera-PérezM, et al. Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg2023; 49: 87–106.
30.
Te StroetMABronsemaERijnenWH, et al. The use of a long stem cemented femoral component in revision total hip replacement: a follow-up study of five to 16 years. Bone Joint J2014; 96-B: 1207–1213.
31.
SponerPKorbelMGrinacM, et al. The outcomes of cemented femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in the elderly: comparison with cementless stems. Clin Interv Aging2021; 16: 1869–1876.
