High union rates of locking compression plating with cortical strut allograft for type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures

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.

Medial helical versus straight lateral plating of distal femoral fractures-a biomechanical comparative study

BACKGROUND

Distal femoral fractures are commonly treated with lateral straight plates. However, the lateral approach may not always be desirable, and 180°-helical plates may be an alternative.

AIM

To investigate the biomechanical competence of 180°-helical plating versus standard straight lateral plating of unstable fractures at the distal femur.

METHODS

Twelve left artificial femora were instrumented with a 15-hole Locking Compression Plate-Distal Femur, using either 180°-helical plates (group 1) or conventional straight lateral plates (group 2). An unstable distal femoral fracture AO/OTA 33-A3.3 was simulated. All specimens were biomechanically tested under quasi-static and progressively increasing combined cyclic axial and torsional loading in internal rotation until failure.

FINDINGS

Initial axial stiffness (N/mm) was significantly higher in group 1 (185.6 ± 50.1) compared to group 2 (56.0 ± 14.4), p < 0.001. Group 1 demonstrated significantly higher initial interfragmentary flexion (°) and significantly lower initial varus/valgus deformation (°) under 500 N static axial compression versus group 2 (2.76 ± 1.02 versus 0.87 ± 0.77 and 4.08 ± 1.49 versus 6.60 ± 0.47), p ≤ 0.005. Shear displacement (mm) under 6 Nm static torsion was significantly higher in group 1 versus group 2 in both internal (1.23 ± 0.28 versus 0.40 ± 0.42) and external (1.21 ± 0.40 versus 0.57 ± 0.33) rotation, p ≤ 0.013. Cycles to failure and failure load (N) (clinical/catastrophic) were significantly higher in group 1 (12,484 ± 2116/13,752 ± 1518 and 1748.4 ± 211.6/1875.2 ± 151.8) compared to group 2 (7853 ± 1262/9727 ± 836 and 1285.3 ± 126.2/1472.7 ± 83.6), p ≤ 0.001.

INTERPRETATION

Although 180°-helical plating using a pre-contoured standard straight lateral plate was associated with higher shear and flexion movements, it demonstrated improved initial axial stability and resistance against varus/valgus deformation compared to straight lateral plating. Moreover, the helical plates were associated with significantly higher endurance to failure. From a biomechanical perspective, 180°-helical plating may be considered as a valuable alternative to standard straight lateral plating of unstable distal femoral fractures.

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

INTRODUCTION

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Introduction

Periprosthetic femoral fracture around hip arthroplasty are growing in the world, nevertheless management and treatment options for fractures “around the stem” are still debated due to lack of high-level studies.

Materials and method

A 85-item survey were fill out by 40 Italian Orthopedic Surgeon member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia) and AIR (Associazione Italiana Riprotesizzazione) to assess their current opinion in the management of type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.

Results

Vancouver/UCS fracture classification showed a good interobserver agreement (k value = .76). ORIF were the treatment of choice for UCS type B1 fractures (100%), revision stem for B2 (85%) and B3 (100%). Locked plates were preferred to cable plate and cerclage without a plate for B1 fractures (50% vs 40% vs 10%); revision with modular stem was preferred to monoblock stem for B2 fractures (50% vs 35%) and B3 (75% vs 15%). Responders tended to postpone at 1-month weight-bearing in patients with B1 fractures. Regarding postoperative pharmacological treatment there was absolute lack of consensus.

Discussion

The primary finding of our survey confirmed the preference of ORIF for B1 fractures and stem revision for B2 and B3 fractures. However, there is no definitive operative technique for all UCS B fractures. Surgeons tended to favor locked plating over cable plating, although only slightly. This general lack of consensus coincides with the inconclusive evidence that currently exists in the literature, which demonstrates both favorable and unfavorable outcomes for both techniques

Conclusions

The absence of complete homogeneity among participants showed the need for prospective randomized studies to set up stronger guidelines for classification, management, surgical treatment, rehabilitation, and pharmacological support of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review

Background

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) represent a major cause for surgical revision after hip arthroplasty with detrimental consequences for patients. The Vancouver classification has been traditionally used since its introduction in 1995. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was described in 2014, to widen the spectrum by aiming for a more comprehensive approach. The UCS also aimed to replace the Vancouver classification by expanding the idea of the Vancouver classification to the whole musculoskeletal apparatus. After introduction of the UCS, the question was raised, whether the UCS found its place in the field of analysing PFFs. Therefore, this systematic review was performed to investigate, the use of the UCS compared to the established Vancouver classification.

Methods

Medline was searched for reports published between 1 January 2016 and 31 November 2020, without language restriction. Included were original articles, irrespective of the level of evidence and case reports reporting on a PFF and using either the Vancouver or the UCS to classify the fractures. Excluded were reviews and systematic reviews.

Results

One hundred forty-six studies were included in the analysis. UCS has not been used in a single registry study, giving a pooled cohort size of 3299 patients, compared to 59,178 patients in studies using the Vancouver classification. Since 2016, one study using UCS was published in a top journal, compared to 37 studies using the Vancouver classification (p=0.29). During the study period, the number of yearly publications remained stagnant (p=0.899).

Conclusions

Despite valuable improvement and expansion of the latter UCS, to date, the Vancouver system clearly leads the field of classifying PFFs in the sense of the common use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05240-w.

Open reduction and locked compression plate fixation, with or without allograft strut, for periprosthetic fractures in patients who had a well-fixed femoral stem: a retrospective study with an average 2-year follow-up

Background

The use of cortical strut allograft has not been determined for Vancouver type B1 or C fracture. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term efficacy of locking compression plating with or without cortical strut allograft in managing these types of fractures.

Methods

We retrospectively assessed 32 patients (17 males, 15 females; 23–88 years, mean: 67.2 years) with Vancouver type B1 or C fractures. Seventeen patients (Group A; B1 fractures in 15 hips, C fractures in 2 hips) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plates (group A). The other 15 patients (Group B; B1 in 14 hips, C in 1 hip) were fixed by locking compression plating combined with cortical strut allografting (group B). The fracture healing rate, healing time, complications and function were compared between these two groups.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 32.4 months (12 to 66), and the overall fracture union rate of the 32 patients was 96.9%. Group B had a higher fracture union rate than Group A, but the difference was not statistically significant. Group A had one case of nonunion of type B1 fracture and one case of malunion; the mean time to fracture healing was 5.3 months (3 to 9). In group B, all patients reached bony union without malunion, with a mean time of fracture healing of 5.1 months (3 to 8).

Conclusion

Treatment of Vancouver type B1 or C fractures by locking compression plating, with or without cortical strut allografting, resulted in similar union rates in these patients. This suggest that, the use of cortical strut allografting should be decided cautiously.

Combined Surgical and Medical Treatment for Vancouver B1 and C Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proposal of a Therapeutic Algorithm While Retaining the Original Stable Stem

INTRODUCTION

There is lack of consensus regarding best operative fixation strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around a stable stem. Evidence exists that some patterns of fracture around a stable stem are better treated with revision surgery than with standard fixation. Anyway, a more aggressive surgical procedure together with medical treatment could allow for stem retention, and reduced risk of nonunion/hardware failure, even in these cases.

SIGNIFICANCE

This paper is placed in a broader context of lack of studies on the matter, and its aim is to shed some light on the management of PFFs around a stable stem, when peculiar mechanical and biological aspects are present.

RESULTS

Based on our casuistry in the treatment of nonunions after PFF successfully treated with original stem retention, and on review of Literature about risk factors for fixation failure, an algorithm is proposed that can guide in choosing the ideal surgical technique even for first-time PFFs with a stable stem, without resorting to revision. Mechanical (major and minor) and biological (local and systemic) factors that may influence fracture healing, leading to nonunion and hardware failure, and subsequent need for re-operation, are considered. The proposed surgical technique consists of rigid fixation with absolute stability (using a plate and structural allograft) plus local biological support (structural allograft and autologous bone marrow concentrate over a platelet-rich plasma-based scaffold) at fracture site. Systemic anabolic treatment (Teriparatide) is also administered in the post-operative period.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical factors are not the only issues to be considered when choosing the surgical approach to PFFs over a stable stem. Systemic and local biological conditions should be taken into account, as well. A therapeutic algorithm is proposed, given the prosthetic stem to be stable, considering mechanical and biological criteria.

High Failure Rates of Locking Compression Plate Osteosynthesis with Transverse Fracture around a Well-Fixed Stem Tip for Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture

This study investigated the incidence of failure after locking compression plate (LCP) osteosynthesis around a well-fixed stem of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs). We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of 63 Vancouver type B1 and C PFFs treated with LCP between May 2001 and February 2018. The mean follow-up duration was 47 months. Only patients with fracture fixation with a locking plate without supplemental allograft struts were included. We identified six periprosthetic fractures of proximal Vancouver B1 fractures with spiral pattern (Group A). Vancouver B1 fractures around the stem tip were grouped into seven transverse fracture patterns (Group B) and 38 other fracture patterns such as comminuted, oblique, or spiral (Group C). Vancouver C fractures comprised 12 periprosthetic fractures with spiral, comminuted, or oblique patterns (Group D). Fracture healing without complications was achieved in all six cases in Group A, 4/7 (57%) in Group B, 35/38 (92%) in Group C, and 11/12 (92%) in Group D, respectively. The failure rates of transverse Vancouver type B1 PFFs around the stem tip were significantly different from those of Vancouver type B1/C PFFs with other patterns. For fracture with transverse pattern around the stem tip, additional fixation is necessary because LCP osteosynthesis has high failure rates.

Fixation of periprosthetic or osteoporotic distal femoral fractures with locking plates: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Introduction

We hypothesised that the use of a polyaxial locking plate design offers the same clinical benefits as a monoaxial locking plate system following distal femoral osteoporotic/periprosthetic fracture fixation.

Method

A multicentre prospective randomised pilot trial was conducted. Inclusion criteria were patients over 60 years with a displaced osteoporotic or periprosthetic distal femoral fracture. Details documented included time to union, complications, reinterventions and functional outcomes according to the Oxford knee score and EuroQol EQ-5D. Analysis of factors influencing an early fracture healing response was performed between those with clear features of radiological callus formation at three months. Statistical analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple covariates assessed for each plate system (1:1 ratio) over a follow-up period of one year.

Results

Forty patients (34 females) with a mean age of 77 (60–99) were recruited. Four patients deceased within the first six months. Twenty-five patients united by the six month follow-up. Six more patients progressed to union between six and nine months. Five patients developed non-union (two patients had implant failure; one in each group) and all underwent revision surgery. Malunion was evident in two cases, one with 15° of valgus (monoaxial plate), and one with 12° of recurvatum (polyaxial plate). Between the two plate systems, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in most of the recorded parameters. Radiological features of early bone healing were present when the surgical approach was smaller (p = 0.015), and when a greater working length of the bridging plate was present (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

Both plate systems demonstrated good union rates and limited implant related complications. Good reduction, mechanically sound construct and respect of the local fracture biology was more important than the particular plate design characteristics.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00264-018-4061-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conservative Treatment for Minimally Displaced Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment has been invariably indicated for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs), which involve femoral diaphysis around stem. We evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative management in patients with minimally displaced type B PFFs around cementless stem.

METHODS

From October 2009 to March 2016, 60 type B PFFs were treated at 1 institution. Among them, 19 minimally (<5 mm) displaced PFFs (31.7%, 19/60), which occurred around cementless stems, were treated nonsurgically with use of teriparatide. There were 6 men and 13 women. The mean age was 77.9 years (range, 51-98 years) at the time of PFF. The femoral stem was stable (type B1) in 11 patients and unstable (type B2) in 8. Teriparatide was injected from 1 to 4 months (mean, 3.2 months). We evaluated time to radiologic union and union rate.

RESULTS

A successful union was obtained in 16 patients (89.5%, 17/19) at 2 to 6 months (mean, 3.5 months). The union rate was 100% (11/11) in type B1 fractures and 75% (6/8) in type B2 fractures.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that conservative treatment is feasible for the cases of type B1 minimally displaced periprosthetic fractures, and it may also be considered as an alternative option for type B2 minimally displaced periprosthetic fractures.

Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and current treatment

Periprosthetic fractures are becoming increasingly frequent due to aging population and growing number of total joint replacements involving joints different from hip and knee, such as shoulder and elbow. The treatment of these fractures still represents one of the major challenges for the orthopedic surgeon. Despite all efforts to understand and treat these patients, high rate of failure and mortality are still reported. In this review, the epidemiology of periprosthetic fractures, risk factors and results of surgical treatment are disclosed. Moreover, we propose a treatment algorithm based on the findings of the New Unified Classification System.

The challenge of non-union in subtrochanteric fractures with breakage of intramedullary nail: evaluation of outcomes in surgery revision with angled blade plate and allograft bone strut

PURPOSE

Subtrochanteric fractures have a bimodal age distribution. They usually require open reduction and internal fixation. Closed reduction and intramedullary nail fixation rate are increased for this type of fracture. As a result, the hardware breakage and non-union rate is high among such patients. Our purpose is to evaluate the outcomes of the role of blade plate and bone strut allograft in the management of subtrochanteric non-union by femoral nailing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reported a group of 22 patients with subtrochanteric non-union, associated with breakage of the intramedullary nail with medial femoral allograft bone and lateral blade plate and wire (PS) s; and a group of 13 patients with subtrochanteric non-union, associated with breakage of the intramedullary nail treated with lateral blade plate and screws (CG). The chosen criteria to evaluate the two group during the clinical and radiological follow-up were the quality of life, measured by The Short Form (12) Health Survey (SF-12), the hip function and quality of life related to it, measured by the Harris Hip Score (HHS), bone healing, measured by Radiographic Union Score (RUS) by XR and CT at 1 year after the surgery, and postoperative complications. The evaluation endpoint was set at 12 months.

RESULTS

The Bone healing measured by RUS occurred and also the full recovery before the first trauma measured by SF-12 and HHS are better in PS group. We only had three unimportant complications in PS while four breakage hardware in CG.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that in complicated non-unions, the use of blade plate and bone strut allograft has a definite positive role in the management of such cases.