Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis

Similar risks of complications and reoperation rates in proximal femur megaprostheses for oncological and non-oncological indications

PURPOSE

Proximal femur megaprostheses (PFMPs) are used to manage large bone defects in both non-oncological indications (NOI) and oncological indications (OI). However, little is known about the comparative risks of reoperation and functional outcomes between these groups. This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative incidences of reoperation and functional results of PFMPs between NOI and OI.

METHODS

This retrospective, monocentric cohort study included 109 implants between 2005 and 2020 (NOI, n = 42; OI, n = 67). Competing risk analysis was used to estimate and compare cumulative incidence of reoperation and complications, with death as a competing event. The Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS) was retrospectively assessed to compare functional outcomes.

RESULTS

The estimated cumulative incidence of reoperation at ten years did not statistically differ: 33.5% for NOI vs. 32.7% for OI (HR = 0.90, 95% CI (0.42-0.95), p = 0.791). The estimated cumulative incidence of complications at ten years did not statistically differ (HR = 1.50, 95%CI (0.80-2.80), p = 0.204). The MSTS score at ten years was significantly higher in the OI group (78.2% ± 19.5) compared to the NOI group (48.3% ± 10.9) (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

PFMPs for NOI demonstrate a comparable risk of reoperation to OI, but with lower long-term functional outcomes.

Contemporary Outcomes of Proximal Femoral Replacement as a Salvage Treatment in Nononcologic Severe Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Severe proximal femoral bone loss remains a challenging problem in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are salvage options for severe bone loss in complex rTHA. The purpose of this study was to describe the survivorship and clinical outcomes of PFR for nononcologic indications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 49 patients who underwent 50 PFRs from January 2014 to May 2021 at a single institution. Indications for PFR included periprosthetic femur fracture (n = 20), reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (n = 18), aseptic loosening with severe proximal femoral bone loss (n = 10), heterotopic ossification (n = 1), and instability (n = 1). The mean age was 70 years. The mean body mass index was 28 and 25 (50%) patients were women. The mean follow-up was three years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess survivorship free from reoperation, rerevision, and dislocation.

RESULTS

The 2-year survivorship free from all-cause reoperation was 78%, and the 2-year survivorship free from rerevision was 87%. Overall, there were 11 (22%) reoperations, with indications including periprosthetic joint infection (n = 6), aseptic loosening (n = 2), hematoma evacuation (n = 1), instability (n = 1), and delayed wound healing (n = 1). There were eight (16%) patients who dislocated after PFR. The mean Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement increased from 48 preoperatively to 77 at two years postoperatively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of PFRs performed in complex rTHA, there was low 2-year survivorship free from all-cause reoperation (78%) and rerevision (87%). Furthermore, the dislocation rate was high at 16%. However, only one patient (2%) was revised for femoral component aseptic loosening. This study highlights the complexity of these patients and the utilization of PFR as a salvage option.

Factors Associated With Failure Following Proximal Femoral Replacement for Salvage Hip Surgery for Nononcologic Indications

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is used when extensive proximal femoral bone loss is encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty. However, further data on 5-to-10-year survivorship and predictors of failure are needed. Our aim was to assess the survivorship of contemporary PFRs used for nononcologic indications and determine factors associated with failure.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective observational study was conducted between June 1, 2010 and August 31, 2021 for patients undergoing PFR for non-neoplastic indications. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months. Demographic, operative, clinical, and radiographic data were collected. Implant survivorship was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis of 56 consecutive cemented PFRs in 50 patients.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 4 years, the mean Oxford Hip Score was 36.2 and patient satisfaction was rated at an average of 4.7 of 5 on the Likert scale. Radiographic evidence of femoral-sided aseptic loosening was determined in 2 PFRs at a median of 9.6 years. The 5-year survivorship with all-cause reoperation and revision as end points was 83.2% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 70.1% to 91.0%) and 84.9% (95% CI: 72.0% to 92.2%), respectively. The 5-year survivorship was 92.3% (95% CI: 78.0% to 97.5%) for stem length > 90 mm compared to 68.4% (95% CI: 39.5% to 85.7%) for stem length ≤ 90 mm. A construct-to-stem length ratio (CSR) ≤ 1 was associated with a 91.7% (95% CI: 76.4% to 97.2%) survival, while a CSR > 1 was associated with a 73.6% (95% CI: 47.4% to 88.1%) survival.

CONCLUSION

A PFR stem length ≤ 90 mm and CSR > 1 were associated with increased rates of failure.

Indication for Proximal Femoral Replacement Is Associated With Risk of Failure

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is reserved as a salvage procedure after failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) or after wide margin resection of tumors involving the proximal femur. Although failure of the PFR construct remains a significant problem, indication has not previously been investigated as a risk factor for failure.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent PFR over a consecutive 15-year period for primary sarcoma or metastatic disease of the proximal femur, compared with conversion to PFR after failed THA. PFR failure was defined as recurrent prosthetic dislocations, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or infection that ultimately resulted in revision surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 99 patients were evaluated, including 58 in the neoplasm and 41 in the failed THA cohorts. Failed THA patients were older (P < .001), with a greater proportion having comorbid hypertension (P = .008), cardiac disease (P = .014), and history of prior ipsilateral and intracapsular surgeries (P < .001). The failure rate was significantly higher in failed THA patients (39.0% vs 10.3%; P < .001) with significantly shorter implant survivorship on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .003). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that THA failure was the only independent predictor for PFR failure (hazard ratio: 4.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.66-10.94; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed significantly worse PFR implant survivorship in patients undergoing PFR for the indication of failed THA compared with neoplasm. Although the underlying etiology of this relationship remains to be explicitly outlined, poor bone quality and soft tissue integrity, multiple prior surgeries, and comorbid conditions are likely contributing factors.

Effects of Perioperative Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block on Postoperative Pain and Hip Function in Elderly Patients With Hip Fracture

Purpose

Pain management is a challenging issue in elderly patients with hip fracture. Despite the accepted clinical outcomes following hip surgery, pain and prolonged recovery time are the most difficult consequences associated with the rehabilitation process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain relief and functional improvement associated with the Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB) during the perioperative period of elderly patients with hip fracture.

Patients and methods

This study included 120 elderly patients with hip fracture, who were admitted to our institution between January 2019 and December 2020. The participants were subsequently randomly divided into the routine analgesia (RA) and fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) groups. Inter-group differences were compared via VAS scores at rest and during movement, Harris hip scores (HHS), presence of complications, adverse events after surgery, and length of hospital stay.

Results

The FICB group VAS scores at rest at 6 hour, 1 and 3 days, and 1 week after surgery were significantly lower than the RA group (P < .05). Moreover, the FICB group VAS scores with movement were markedly lower at 6 hour, 1 and 3 days, as well as 1 and 2 weeks after surgery (P < .05). The HHS of the FICB and RA groups were (53.41±8.63) and (40.02±9.61), respectively, on the seventh day after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The incidence of postoperative complications and adverse events in the FICB group were not statistically different from the RA group. The average hospital stay of the FICB group was 2.12 days shorter than the RA group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .13).

Conclusion

FICB provides superior analgesic effect both at rest and with movement, along with rapid short-term recovery of hip function following surgery in elderly patients with hip fracture, without increasing postoperative complications or adverse events.

Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a well-established treatment for neoplasia of the proximal femur. The use of this surgical technique for non-neoplastic conditions has increased over the years. We carried out a systematic review of the literature to study the indications, complications, and functional results when PFR is used for non-neoplastic conditions. Twenty-seven studies were included in the review with a total of 828 PFRs with a mean follow-up of 50 months (range 1-225 months). The main indications were infection (28%), periprosthetic fracture (27%), aseptic loosening (22%), and fracture (16%). The rate of reoperation was 20.3% overall. The overall revision rate was 15.4%. The main complications were dislocation (10.2%) and infection (7.3%). After 2010, the rates of reoperation (25.5% versus 18.2%), loosening (9.4% versus 3.2%), and dislocation (15.7% versus 7.9%) were lower than before 2010. The 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%. The hip function scores improved post-surgery. In conclusion, the use of PFR in non-neoplastic conditions remains a marginal tool, associated with low direct mortality and high complication rates, but we expect its use to increase in the near future.

The Use of Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Lower-Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review

»

As the number of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures continues to rise, megaprostheses have found an emerging role in more complex revision arthroplasty cases that require additional reconstruction, stability, and restoration of function.

»

Megaprosthesis options have evolved: in addition to cemented prostheses, cementless and even hybrid fixation designs optimize longevity. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), distal femoral replacement (DFR), proximal tibial replacement (PTR), and total femoral replacement (TFR) are all limb salvage options in the setting of substantial bone loss, poor bone quality, and soft-tissue compromise.

»

Dislocation is one of the most common complications after PFR, likely due to the loss of soft-tissue integrity, most notably the hip abductor musculature from the greater trochanter. The utilization of dual-mobility constructs, larger femoral heads, elevated acetabular liners, and constrained acetabular liners may reduce the risk of instability and improve overall hip function.

»

Patients with megaprostheses may be more prone to periprosthetic joint infection and surgical site infection given multiple variables, such as the lengthy nature of the surgical procedure, prolonged wound exposure, extensive soft-tissue dissection and resection, poor soft-tissue coverage, and poorer host status.

»

Despite advances in technology, complication and revision rates remain high after megaprosthesis reconstruction. Therefore, thorough attention to patient-specific factors must be considered for appropriate use of these constructs.

Mortality After Postoperative Periprosthetic Fracture of the Femur After Hip Arthroplasty in the Last Decade: Meta-Analysis of 35 Cohort Studies Including 4841 Patients

BACKGROUND

Postoperative periprosthetic fracture of the femur (POPFF) is associated with increased mortality. There is a lack of general estimates of mortality after POPFF and a need for higher-level evidence in this area. The aim of this study was to estimate mortality after POPFF using data reported in cohort studies from the last decade.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted using Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during time as an inpatient, within 30 days, within 90 days, and within one year of POPFF. Mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]) was estimated using metaregression.

RESULTS

A total of 4841 patients from 35 cohort studies were included. Study quality was generally low. The weighted mean follow-up was 2.3 years, and the most common POPFF was Vancouver B. The pooled mortality as an inpatient was 2.4% (95% CI 1.6% to 3.4%). The pooled mortality within 30 days was 3.3% (95% CI 2.0% to 5.0%). The pooled mortality within 90 days was 4.8% (95% CI 3.6% to 6.1%). The pooled mortality within one year was 13.4% (95% CI 11.9% to 14.8%). Mortality after POPFF was like that of neck of femur fracture up to 30 days, but better at one year.

CONCLUSION

Mortality is like that experienced by patients after neck of femur fracture up to 30 days, but better at one year, which may represent the lower underlying risk of death in the POPFF cohort. These results may form the basis for evaluation of services treating POPFF in the future.

Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.

RESULTS

In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.

CONCLUSION

PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.

Different outcomes after proximal femoral replacement in oncologic and failed revision arthroplasty patients - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a technically demanding procedure commonly performed to restore extensive, oncological or non-oncological bone defects in a severely debilitated patient collective. Depending on different indications, a varying outcome has been reported. The aim of the study was to assess the functional outcomes and complication rates of PFR with the modular Munich-Luebeck (MML) femoral megaprosthesis (ESKA/Orthodynamics, Luebeck, Germany), and to highlight outcome differences in patients treated for failed revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) or malignant bone disease.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients treated with PFR for failed THA or malignant tumor disease between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome (VAS, SF-12, MSTS, WOMAC, TESS), complications and failure types (Henderson’s failure classification) were assessed. A Kaplan-Meier analysis determined implant survival.

Results

Fifty-eight patients (age: 69.9 years, BMI: 26.7 kg/m², mean follow-up: 66 months) were included. The mean SF-12 (physical / mental) was 37.9 / 48.4. MSTS averaged 68% at final follow-up, while mean WOMAC and TESS scored 37.8 and 59.5. TESS and WOMAC scores demonstrated significantly worse outcomes in the revision group (RG) compared to the tumor group (TG). Overall complication rate was 43.1%, and dislocation was the most common complication (27.6%). Implant survival rates were 83% (RG) and 85% (TG; p = n.s.) at 5 years, while 10-year survival was 57% (RG) and 85% (TG, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PFR is a salvage procedure for restoration of mechanical integrity and limb preservation after extensive bone loss. Complications rates are considerably high.

Functional outcomes and 10-year implant survival rate were worse in the RG compared to the TG. Strict indications and disease-specific patient education are essential in preoperative planning and prognosis.

Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Hip and Knee Revision Arthroplasty

Megaprostheses as a means of limb salvage originated in orthopaedic oncology, and implant evolution was initially driven by developments within this field. Improvements in imaging modalities and in chemotherapeutics prolonged patient survival and promoted a transformation in the surgeon's mentality from salvage operation to functional limb reconstruction. As primary arthroplasty operations became more popular, megaprostheses found new utility in hip and knee revision arthroplasty. In this capacity, these implants provided much needed alternatives to traditional arthroplasty revision options for addressing massive bone loss and complex periprosthetic fractures. The indications for megaprostheses continue to expand with advances in design, stability, and overall longevity. Thus, greater numbers of orthopaedic surgeons in arthroplasty and traumatology have to be familiar with this technology. Importantly, each anatomic location presents unique considerations for reconstruction; however, additional variables such as the quantity of bone loss, the quality of remaining bone stock, and fracture type also influence implant selection. Ultimately, there is still much to be optimized in the use of megaprostheses for hip and knee revision arthroplasty. High multifactorial complication and revision surgery rates compared with conventional prostheses make these implants for many a "last resort" option.

Proximal femoral reconstruction with modular megaprostheses in non-oncological patients

Introduction

Multiple revision hip arthroplasties and critical trauma might cause severe bone loss that requires proximal femoral replacement (PFR). The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse complication- and revision-free survivals of patients who received modular megaprostheses in an attempt to reconstruct massive non-neoplastic bone defects of the proximal femur.

Questions/purposes

(1) What were general complication rates and revision-free survivals following PFR? (2) What is the incidence of complication specific survivals? (3) What were risk factors leading to a diminished PFR survival?

Materials and methods

Twenty-eight patients with sufficient follow-up after receiving a modular proximal femoral megaprosthesis were identified. The indications for PFR included prosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, non-union and critical femoral fracture. Complications were grouped according to the ISOLS-classification of segmental endoprosthetic failure by Henderson et al.

Results

Overall, the complication-free survival was 64.3% at one year, 43.2% at five years and 38.4% at ten years, with 16 patients (57%) suffering at least one complication. Complications were dislocation in eight patients (29%), PJI in 6 patients (21%), periprosthetic fracture in five patients (18%), and aseptic loosening in six patients (21%). Prosthesis stem cementation showed a lower risk for revision in a cox proportional hazard model (95% CI 0.04–0.93, HR 0.2, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

PFR with modular megaprostheses represents a viable last resort treatment with high complication rates for patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss due to failed arthroplasty or critical fractures. In revision arthroplasty settings, PFR cementation should be advocated in cases of impaired bone quality.

A Contemporary Classification System of Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Current femoral bone loss classification systems in revision total hip arthroplasty were created at a time when the predominant reconstructive methods used cylindrical porous-coated cobalt-chrome stems. As these stems have largely been replaced by fluted-tapered titanium stems, the ability of these classification systems to help guide implant selection is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe a novel classification system based on contemporary reconstructive techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent femoral component revision at our institution from 2007 through 2019. Preoperative images were reviewed, and FBL was rated according to the Paprosky classification and compared to ratings using our institution's NCS. Rates of reoperation at the time of most recent follow-up were determined and compared.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and forty-two femoral revisions in 330 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 2.7 years were identified. Femoral type according to Paprosky and NCS were Paprosky I (36, 8.1%), II (61, 13.8%), IIIA (180, 40.7%), IIIB (116, 26.2%), and IV (49 11.1%) and NCS 1 (35, 7.9%), 2 (364, 82.4%), 3 (8, 1.8%), 4 (27, 6.1%), and 5 (8, 1.8%). Of the 353 nonstaged rTHAs, there were 42 cases requiring unplanned reoperation (11.9%), including infection (18, 5.1%), instability (10, 2.8%), femoral loosening (5, 1.4%), and various other causes (9, 2.5%). The NCS was more predictive of reoperation than the Paprosky classification (Fisher's exact test, P = .008 vs P = ns, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We present a novel femoral classification system that can help guide contemporary implant selection.

Modular megaprostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur

Background

Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the femur remain challenging, especially in patients with previous multiple revisions. Modular megaprostheses (mMPs) are rarely used in this indication; however, in some cases mMPs seem to be the last chance for limb salvage. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of PPFs of the femur treated by modular mMPs at our institution.

Patients and methods

In this study 33 patients (27 female; mean age 79 years) with a PPF after total hip or total knee arthroplasty (no tumor indications) were treated using modular proximal (mPFR; n = 12), distal (mDFR; n = 14) or total (mTFR; n = 7) femur replacement. A retrospective evaluation regarding mortality and revision rates was performed. Failures with need for revision were classified.

Results

At a mean follow up of 60 months (range 0–178 months), the total mortality rate as well as total revision rate were both found to be 39%. At 1 year follow-up the mortality rate was highest within the mDFR group, and less revisions were necessary in the mPFR group, however both findings were not significantly. Those patients, who had revision surgery before PPF, were found to have higher revision rate after implantation of mMP. In the mPFR group, dislocation was the most frequent failure, within the mDFR and the mTFR group infection. In one case amputation of the lower limb was necessary.

Conclusion

mMPs represent a valuable option in PPFs of the femur. Infection and dislocation remain the most frequent complications. Prospective clinical studies are required to further define the outcome of mMPs in PPFs of the femur.

Results after surgical treatment of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. Osteosynthesis with prosthesis preservation vs. prosthesis change

Background: Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the femur close to the hip joint have serious consequences for most geriatric affected patients. In principle, apart from the highly uncommon conservative therapy, there are two therapeutic options. On the one hand, the prosthesis-preserving treatment by means of osteosynthesis using plates and/or cerclages in general is available. On the other hand, a (partial) change of the prosthesis with optionally additive osteosynthesis or a proximal femoral replacement can be performed because of prosthesis loosening or non-reconstructable comminuted fractures as well as most cemented stem variations.

The aim of this retrospective study is the analysis of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in the presence of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). The outcome of the operated patients is to be investigated depending on the type of care (osteosynthesis with prosthesis preservation vs. prosthesis change).

Material and methods: In a retrospective case analysis, 80 patients with THA and PPF were included. They were divided into two groups. Group I represents the osteosynthetic treatment to preserve the implanted THA (n=42). Group II (n=38) includes those patients who were treated by a change of their endoprosthesis with or without additional osteosynthesis. Specifics of all patients, like gender, age at fracture, interval between fracture and implantation, length of in-patient stay, body mass index, osteoporosis, corticomedullary index and complications such as infections, re-fracture, loosening, material failure or other complications, were recorded and compared. Furthermore, the patients were re-examined by a questionnaire and the score according to Merle d’Aubigné and Postel.

Results: In group I the mean follow-up time was 48.5±23 months (4 years) whereas group II amounted 32.5±24.5 months (2.7 years) (p=0.029). Besides, there were significant differences in age (81± 11 years vs. 76±10 years, p=0.047) and length of in-patient stay (14.5±8.6 days vs. 18.0±16.7 days, p=0.014). According to the score of Merle d’Aubigné and Postel, there were significantly better values for the pain in group II with comparable values for mobility and walking ability.

Conclusion: The treatment of periprosthetic proximal fractures of the femur is dependent on the classification (Vancouver and Johannsen) and in particular on the prosthetic anchoring as well as the extent of the comminution zone. Older patients and patients with osteoporosis are more frequently treated with an endoprosthesis revision. Patients, who have been treated with an osteosynthesis for preserving their endoprosthesis, showed a shorter length of in-patient stay and fewer complications than people with replacement surgery. In contrast to that, patients with prosthesis revision had better outcomes concerning the score of Merle d’Aubigné and Postel.

"Purse-String" Capsular Closure for Decreasing Dislocation Rates in Proximal Femur Replacements

Hip joint dislocation is the most common complication after a proximal femur replacement. As the utilization of proximal femur replacements continues to increase, it becomes imperative for surgeons to find the optimal method to decrease postoperative dislocation and its sequelae. These cases often involve extensive soft-tissue deficits that require reconstruction to provide postoperative strength and stability. Patients report good functional outcomes; however, dislocation remains a concern. Although “described” previously in the literature, the authors illustrate the “purse-string” hip joint capsular closure technique to help other surgeons understand it and apply to their practice as deemed necessary. We also present the senior author's results with using a modified version of the “purse-string” hip joint capsular closure technique.

Cemented Proximal Femoral Replacement for the Management of Non-Neoplastic Conditions: A Versatile Implant but Not Without Its Risks

BACKGROUND

The demand for revision arthroplasty continues to grow. Proximal femoral bone loss poses a significant challenge to surgeons and proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are one option to address this problem. The aim of our study is to assess the reoperation, complication, and mortality rates following PFR for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted of a consecutive group of patients treated with a PFR for non-neoplastic conditions between 2010 and 2018. Mortality was confirmed using the Irish national death events publication service.

RESULTS

Over the 8-year study period, 79 PFRs in 78 patients were performed. Mean age of patients was 78.3 years (standard deviation 11.9), of which 37.2% were male. Periprosthetic fracture was the most common indication for PFR (63.3%). The 30-day mortality rate was 7.6% (6 patients), of which bone cement implantation syndrome occurred in 4 patients. One-year mortality was 12.7%. Complications occurred in 22.8%.

CONCLUSION

A cemented PFR is a versatile prosthesis in the armamentarium of a revision arthroplasty surgeon that allows immediate full weight-bearing. However, it may appropriately be considered a last resort procedure that poses specific risks that must be explained to patients and family. We present the short-term outcomes on one of the largest series of PFR to date.

The impact of polyethylene abrasion on the occurrence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in patients with total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

In addition to abrasion-induced osteolysis and ensuing instabilities, the polyethylene (PE) abrasion of total hip arthroplasty (THA) inlays can also cause gait instability due to the decentralization of the hip joint. The current literature yields, as yet, insufficient findings whether these two factors are linked directly or indirectly to a higher risk for periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PPFF). The aim of our retrospective evaluation is to analyse the impact of PE abrasion on the pathology of PPFF in patients with THA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective evaluation comprises all PPFF in patients with THA in the period from 01/2010 up to 12/2016. The study group (SG) included 66 cases (n = 66). The control group (CG) was comprised of patients with asymptomatic THA (n = 66), who were treated by our outpatient department including routine check-ups and X-ray examinations. We used the matched-pair methodology to scale the period of postsurgical care of the CG to the lifetime of the implant up to PPFF in the SG. We included epidemiologic data, radiological femoral head decentralization, osteolysis (Gruen classification), instabilities, acetabular cup position, and implant properties in our analysis. For the SG, we also included intra-operative signs of abrasion.

FINDINGS

The SG showed significantly higher numbers of decentralized THA as signs of inlay erosion with 73% compared to only 41% in the CG (p > 0.001). The SG showed 1 ± 0.68 mm hip joint decentralization as to 0.5 ± 0.59 mm in the CG (p = 0.004). We found significantly more cases of osteolysis in the SG (n = 25) than in the CG (n = 13) (p = 0.003). We found no notable differences in acetabular cup inclination or anteversion as well as cup size. However, differences were significant in femoral head size (SG 32 ± 2.3 mm, CG 36 ± 2.4 mm; p = 0.042) and head material. We found more widespread use of metal femoral heads in the SG than in the CG (SG 1:1, CG 1:21; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PPFF patients showed significantly higher rates of inlay erosion, resulting in femoral head decentralization and osteolysis. The higher rate of fracture is likely caused by the increasing instability of the implant fixation due to abrasion-induced osteolysis and the associated degradation of bone quality. It is conceivable that the abrasion and decentralization of the THA can also lead to gait instability, and thus, a higher proneness to falls. Gait instability can also be aggravated by increased granulation tissue and effusion due to the inlay abrasion. Although this cannot be substantiated by the investigation. In patients with decentralization of the THA and osteolysis, a radiological follow-up should be performed, and in case of gait instability (femoral head and) inlay replacements should be considered.

Two stage revision with a proximal femur replacement

Background

Despite very good prosthesis retention times, the growing numbers of primary implantations of hip endoprostheses are leading to increasing numbers of revision operations. Periprosthetic infection, particularly in revision implants, often leads to a massive loss of bone stock, so that in a two-stage exchange the only option left is implantation of a megaendoprosthesis. This retrospective study investigated the clinical and functional outcome for patients who received megaendoprostheses in the proximal femur in two-stage exchange procedures.

Methods

Forty-nine patients were treated between 1996 and 2014 (mean age 71 years, mean follow-up period 52 months). Microorganisms were isolated intraoperatively in 44 patients (89.9%). The reinfection rate was documented in patients who did not undergo any further revision surgery due to mechanical failure (primary) and in patients who had subsequent revisions after reimplantation and subsequent reinfection (secondary).

Results

The mean C-reactive protein level at the time of reimplantation was 1.25 mg/dL (range 0.5–3.4). The primary success rate with curative treatment for prosthetic joint infection was 92% (four of 49 patients). The secondary success rate with infection revision cases was 82% (three of 17 revision cases). The mean Harris hip score was 69 (range 36–94). The majority of patients needed different types of walking aid or even wheelchairs, and only 50% of the patients were able to walk outside.

Conclusions

Reinfections occurred in only 8% of patients who underwent two-stage exchanges with a proximal femur replacement. When revision surgery for the proximal femur replacement was required for mechanical reasons, however, the associated reinfections increased the reinfection rate to 18%. Proximal femur replacement achieves a clear reduction in pain, maintenance of leg length, and restoration of limited mobility, and the procedure thus represents a clear alternative to the extensive Girdlestone procedure, which is even more immobilising, or mutilating amputation.

Safe Positioning for Sexual Intercourse After Proximal Femoral Replacement

Hip arthroplasty is a common procedure used for the treatment of fractures and degenerative processes affecting the hip. Proximal femoral replacement is an uncommon type of hip arthroplasty used for reconstruction after extensive bone loss. Proximal femoral replacement is used most commonly after the resection of the proximal femur for malignancies and for extensive bone loss encountered in revision hip arthroplasty and occasionally for extensive bone loss after fractures. The authors present a case of a female patient who sustained a prosthetic dislocation of her proximal femoral replacement during sexual intercourse. Standard hip arthroplasty itself can pose a risk factor for dislocation associated with certain sexual positions. Proximal femoral replacement surgery likely carries an increased risk for dislocation, given the magnitude of soft tissue loss at the time of resection. The authors believe that routine perioperative conversations for sexually active patients with proximal femur replacements should include this potential risk and discuss appropriate positioning to prevent a potential dislocation. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(2):e292-e294.].

Is endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur appropriate in the comorbid patient?

INTRODUCTION

Patients with failed hip arthroplasty requiring extensive femoral reconstruction often present with a multitude of comorbidities. Many treatment options limit initial mobilisation relying on bone graft incorporation. The use of endoprosthetic replacement (EPR), despite often being a "last resort", offers an expeditious solution with early mobilisation that is crucial in the comorbid individual. Many perceive that the surgical insult of EPR is associated with an increased mortality. The aim of this study was to report our experience of proximal femoral EPR as the treatment for failed arthroplasty or fracture fixation. Primary outcomes included mortality, complications, revision and function.

METHODS

Retrospective review of proximal femoral EPR undertaken at our institution for non-oncological indications between 2007 and 2015 identified 37 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months. Patient case notes, demographics and radiographs were studied.

RESULTS

The 90-day mortality following proximal femoral EPR was 2.7%. 9 patients had died at the time of final follow-up (mean time to death was 33 months). The mean preoperative and postoperative Oxford Hip Score improved from 8 to 31 respectively (p<0.05). When considering revision for any cause, 5-year survival was 94.6%. 2 patients suffered periprosthetic joint infection and 1 patient required revision for prosthesis dislocation.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a relatively low incidence of perioperative complications, with a mortality rate similar to other revision options in this high-risk cohort. Whilst further revision may not always be possible, this "last resort" technique is safe in the comorbid population presenting with significant proximal femoral bone deficiency.

Cardiac disease and advanced age increase the mortality risk following surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Aims

Periprosthetic fracture is a significant complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to describe the survival of patients sustaining periprosthetic femoral fractures and compare this with that of the general population, as well as to identify the factors that influence survival.

Patients and Methods

A total of 151 patients (women: men 116:35, mean age 74.6 years, standard deviation 11.5) that sustained a periprosthetic fracture between January 2005 and October 2012 were retrospectively analysed. Epidemiological data, comorbidities, type of surgical management, type of implant, and mortality data were studied.

Results

The mean survival time was 77 months (95% confidence interval 71 to 84; numbers at risk: 73) and was lower than that of the general population. The risk analyses showed that previous cardiac disease, particularly ischaemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure, age over 75 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores above 3 were associated with a significantly higher mortality.

Conclusions

Periprosthetic fractures carry a high risk of post-operative mortality. Our data demonstrate that advanced age (> 75 years) and previous cardiac disease are associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality. The ASA score is an appropriate instrument for risk stratification. Pre-operative cardiac status should be optimised before surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:921–6.

Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an established treatment modality following oncological resection. Increasingly, these prostheses are being used for non-neoplastic conditions such as fractures and bone loss associated with septic or aseptic loosening. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the failure rates, mortality rates and hip outcome scores when PFAs were used in non-neoplastic conditions. There were 14 studies with an average follow-up of 3.8 years (range 0-14 years) describing 356 PFAs. Re-operation for any reason occurred in 23.8% (85/356) of cases. The most common complications were dislocation (15.7%) and infection (7.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 0% to 40%. PFA provides an acceptable surgical solution when confronted with massive bone loss, but it has a high re-operation rate for dislocation and infection.

Proximal femoral arthroplasty in patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty

Bone loss represents one of the greatest challenges in revision joint surgery. A retrospective review was conducted of both radiographic and clinical outcomes of eleven patients who underwent revision arthroplasty using a long extensively porous coated cylindrical femoral component. All patients' femurs presented with severe proximal femoral bone loss (Paprosky class IIIB and IV). With a mean follow-up of 8 years (2 to 14) we report no femoral revisions and one acetabular revision to a constrained cup secondary to instability. All patients were clinically and radiographically stable. We did not observe any issue with proximal stress shielding or component loosening. The article reports that in patients with severe proximal femoral bone loss, extensively porous-coated non-modular stems are a viable option offering stable and predictable outcomes.

The use of megaprostheses for reconstruction of large skeletal defects in the extremities: a critical review

In the case of primary malignant tumors, extensive metastatic disease, major trauma or end-stage revision arthroplasty, the orthopaedic surgeon often has to deal with the need to reconstruct large skeletal defects, or replace bone of low quality. In the past years this was frequently impossible, and the only solution was amputation of the extremity. Later, the introduction of custom-made endoprostheses capable of reconstructing large skeletal defects, also known as megaprostheses, allowed for sparing of the extremity. This was especially valuable in the case of oncologic orthopaedic surgery, as advances in the medical treatment of sarcoma patients improved prognosis and limb-preserving surgery proved to have comparable patient survival rates to amputation. However, custom-made designs were implicated in frequent mechanical failures. Furthermore, they were extremely difficult to revise.

The introduction of modular endoprostheses in the 1980s marked a new era in orthopaedic oncologic surgery. Modular megaprostheses consist of a number of different components in readily available sets, which can be assembled in various combinations to best address the specific bone defect. Moreover, they proved to have considerably lower rate of mechanical failures, which were also much easier to address during revision surgery by replacing only the parts that failed. The functional outcome after reconstruction with megasprostheses is often very satisfactory and the patient can enjoy a good quality of life. Nowadays, the major challenge is to eliminate the rate of non-mechanical complications associated with surgery of that magnitude, namely the risk for wound dehiscence and necrosis, deep infection, as well as local recurrence of the tumor.

In our present mini-review, we attempt to make a critical approach of the available literature, focusing on the multiple aspects of reconstructive surgery using megaprostheses. We present the evolution of megasprosthetic implants, the indications for their use, and describe the outcome of surgery, so that the non-specialized orthopedic surgeon also becomes familiar with that kind of surgery which is usually performed in tertiary centers. A special interest lays in the recent developments that promise for even better results and fewer complications.