Revision rate is higher in patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following revision arthroplasty in comparison with ORIF following our algorithm: a two-center 1 analysis of 129 patients

Surgeon Experience May Predict Failure After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Fracture

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic fracture often requires revision hip arthroplasty. This study evaluated factors contributing to subsequent revisions and reoperations in patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic femur fracture. The authors hypothesized that surgeons who had higher revision volume would have decreased subsequent complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 84 revision hip arthroplasties for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures performed at a single academic institution was conducted. Surgeons were categorized based on their reoperation volume: experienced (≥ 12 complicated hip reoperations annually) and less experienced (< 12 complicated hip reoperations annually). Univariable and multivariable analyses evaluated risk factors for all-cause revision. Survival analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard modeling.

RESULTS

Of the 84 patients, there were eight (10%) revisions and 15 (18%) reoperations. Survivorship free of all-cause revision was greater for high-volume surgeons [hazard ratio [HR] 0.03 (0.00 to 0.43); P = 0.01]. Subanalysis demonstrated that experienced surgeons had increased 5-year survivorship free of septic revisions [HR 0.03 (0.00 to 0.54); P = 0.02]. The multivariable analysis also demonstrated that extended oral antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with 5-year septic reoperation-free survival [HR 0.03 (0 to 0.45); P = 0.01]; this only trended toward significance in 5-year septic revision-free survival [HR 0.04 (0.00 to 1.97); P = 0.11]. There was no association between aseptic revision and surgeon experience in univariable or multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Experienced arthroplasty surgeons, as well as extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis, may improve patient outcomes when treating patients who have periprosthetic fractures requiring revision arthroplasty. Consideration should be given to call schedules and management of this vulnerable population.

Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis

INTRODUCTION

Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures (PFF) are associated with stem instability and often require a demanding stem implant revision (SR) or internal fixation (ORIF). This latter surgery is increasingly performed in the last few years instead of SR, but it is unclear which is the best treatment to manage PFF patients. The aim of this study is the compare the outcomes of B2/B3 PFF managed by either ORIF or SR, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were examined to find out relevant publications dealing with the different outcomes of SR vs. ORIF in B2/B3 PFF of the hip. The effect model (EM) was calculated using Cohen´s d index.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included, reporting on a total of 1629 patients (564 ORIF and 1065 SR). The pooled random EM estimates for reoperation was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.39-1.96; I2 = 78%) in favor of ORIF surgery; EM for complications was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45-2.27; I2 = 85%) without difference among procedures. The EM for transfusion was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; I2 = 62%) in favor of fixation.

CONCLUSION

ORIF and SR were both suitable and effective options in PFF patients, being associated to similar complications rates. Our results show that ORIF performance in PFF patients is associated to significantly less in blood loss, surgical time and in-hospital stay. These advantages are particularly appealing in patients with multiple comorbidities.

Optimizing periprosthetic fracture management and in-hospital outcome: insights from the PIPPAS multicentric study of 1387 cases in Spain

BACKGROUND

The incidence of all periprosthetic fractures (PPF), which require complex surgical treatment associated with high morbidity and mortality, is predicted to increase. The evolving surgical management has created a knowledge gap regarding its impact on immediate outcomes. This study aimed to describe current management strategies for PPF and their repercussions for in-hospital outcomes as well as to evaluate their implications for the community.

METHODS

PIPPAS (Peri-Implant PeriProsthetic Survival Analysis) was a prospective multicentre observational study of 1387 PPF performed during 2021. Descriptive statistics summarized the epidemiology, fracture characteristics, management, and immediate outcomes. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was employed to evaluate potential predictors of in-hospital mortality, complications, discharge status, and weight-bearing restrictions.

RESULTS

The study encompassed 32 (2.3%) shoulder, 4 (0.3%) elbow, 751 (54.1%) hip, 590 (42.5%) knee, and 10 (0.7%) ankle PPF. Patients were older (median 84 years, IQR 77-89), frail [median clinical frailty scale (CFS) 5, IQR 3-6], presented at least one comorbidity [median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) 5, IQR 4-7], were community dwelling (81.8%), and had outdoor ambulation ability (65.6%). Femoral knee PPF were most frequently associated with uncemented femoral components, while femoral hip PPF occurred equally in cemented and uncemented stems. Patients were managed surgically (82%), with co-management (73.9%), through open approaches (85.9%) after almost 4 days (IQR, 51.9-153.6 h), with prosthesis revision performed in 33.8% of femoral hip PPF and 6.5% of femoral knee PPF. For half of the patients, the discharge instructions mandated weight-bearing restrictions. In-hospital mortality rates were 5.2% for all PPF and 6.2% for femoral hip PPF. Frailty, age > 84 years, mild cognitive impairment, CFS > 3, CCI > 3, and non-geriatric involvement were candidate predictors for in-hospital mortality, medical complications, and discharge to a nursing care facility. Management involving revision arthroplasty by experienced surgeons favoured full weight-bearing, while an open surgical approach favoured weight-bearing restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Current arthroplasty fixation check and revision rates deviate from established guidelines, yet full weight-bearing is favoured. A surgical delay of over 100 h and a lack of geriatric co-management were related to in-hospital mortality and medical complications. This study recommends judicious hypoaggressive approaches. Addressing complications and individualizing the surgical strategy can lead to enhanced functional outcomes, alleviating the economic and social burdens upon hospital discharge. Level of Evidence Level IV case series.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04663893), protocol ID: PI 20-2041.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Vancouver B1 and B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proportional Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty, and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a common surgical treatment. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ORIF in patients with different fracture patterns (Vancouver B1 and B2).

Materials and Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed from inception to August 2022. We conducted a pair-wise meta-analysis (with a fixed-effects model) on the 10 comparative studies and a proportional meta-analysis on the data from the 39 articles to determine a consensus. The outcomes were the incidence of reoperations that included osteosynthesis, irrigation/debridement and revision arthroplasty.

Results

The pair-wise meta-analysis showed similar outcomes between two groups; the risk of reoperation (odds ratio [OR]=0.82, confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.55, P=0.542), nonunion (OR=0.49; CI 0.22-1.10, P=0.085) and deep infection (OR=1.89, CI 0.48-7.46, P=0.361). In proportion meta-analysis, pooled prevalence of reoperation was 9% (95% CI, 6-12) in B1 and 8% (95% CI, 2-15) in B2 (heterogeneity between two groups (Q), P=0.772). The pooled prevalence of nonunion was same as of 4% in B1 and B2 (Q, P=0.678), and deep infection was 2% (95% CI, 1-3) in B1 and 4% (95% CI, 2-7) in B2 (Q, P=0.130).

Conclusion

ORIF is a feasible treatment for B1 and B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, with acceptable outcomes in terms of, nonunion and infection. The results of this study would help clinicians and provide baseline data for further studies validating PFF.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

Fracture 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).

CONCLUSION

Our 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.