The location of the fracture determines the better solution, osteosynthesis or revision, in periprosthetic femoral fractures

[Effectiveness of shape memory alloy embracing device in treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effectiveness of shape memory alloy embracing device in the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture after primary hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

The clinical data of 30 patients (30 hips) with Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture after primary hip arthroplasty between January 2019 and January 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 15 cases were treated with shape memory alloy embracing device for fracture fixation (group A) and 15 cases with titanium cable cerclage (group B). There was no significant difference in general data such as gender, age, body mass index, the cause of primary arthroplasty and surgical method, prosthesis type, the cause and side of femoral fracture, the time from injury to operation, and comorbidities between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay of the two groups were recorded. The fracture healing was examined by X-ray film, and the hip joint function was evaluated by Harris score.

RESULTS

The operations in both groups were completed successfully, and the incisions healed by first intention after operation with no vascular or nerve injury. The operation time and hospital stay in group A were significantly shorter than those in group B ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between group A and group B ( t=-0.518， P=0.609). Patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 16.3 months) in group A and 12-22 months (mean, 16.7 months) in group B. X-ray film showed that all fractures healed, the healing time was (14.73±2.05) weeks in group A and (17.27±2.60) weeks in group B, and there was a significant difference between the two groups ( t=-2.960， P=0.006). During follow-up, there was no complication such as prosthesis loosening, periprosthetic infection, joint stiffness, or internal fixator loosening. The Harris score of group A was significantly better than that of group B at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation ( P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with titanium cable cerclage, using shape memory alloy embracing device to fix Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture can accelerate fracture healing, shorten operation time, and reduce intraoperative blood loss. Patients can perform functional exercise earlier and restore joint function better.

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.

The impact of stem fixation method on Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture management

INTRODUCTION

Our understanding of the impact of the stem fixation method in total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the subsequent management of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) is still limited. This study aimed to investigate and quantify the effect of the stem fixation method, i.e., cemented vs. uncemented THA, on the management of Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures with the same plate.

METHODS

Eight laboratory models of synthetic femora were divided into two groups and implanted with either a cemented or uncemented hip prosthesis. The overall stiffness and strain distribution were measured under an anatomical one-legged stance. All eight specimens underwent an osteotomy to simulate Vancouver type B1 PFF's. Fractures were then fixed using the same extramedullary plate and screws. The same measurements and fracture movement were taken under the same loading conditions.

RESULTS

Highlighted that the uncemented THA and PFF fixation constructs had a lower overall stiffness. Subsequently, the mechanical strain on the fracture plate for the uncemented construct was higher compared to the cemented constructs.

CONCLUSION

PFF fixation of a Vancouver type B1 fracture using a plate may have a higher risk of failure in uncemented THAs.