Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures after Total Hip Arthroplasty Vancouver Type B

Biomechanics of PHILOS plates in Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy of PHILOS plates in the treatment of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) and to validate its biomechanical reliability via finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models. Methods: Ten males and eight females with Vancouver B1 PFF who underwent PHILOS plate fixation between September 2017 and January 2022 were selected. The average age was 72.61 ± 8.19 years, with a range of 57-86 years old. X-ray films were taken to assess the fracture healing situation around the femoral prosthesis as well as the position of the PHILOS plates and femoral prosthesis. Two different plates (the PHILOS plate and the Cable GTR plate) were used for fixation, and the differences in biomechanical stability of the two fixation methods were compared using finite element analysis and mechanical testing on the Synbone femoral models to validate the biomechanical dependability of the PHILOS plate. Results: All 18 cases were followed for at least 1 year, as a result. The average period of follow-up was 17 months, ranging from 12 to 36 months. At the most recent follow-up, Harris scores for the hip joints of patients ranged from 82 to 89, with an average score of 86. The X-rays revealed that all fractures surrounding the femoral prosthesis had healed and that there was no looseness in the femoral prosthesis. None of the PHILOS license plates had expired. All patients were able to perform full-load walking, and pain and claudication in affected limbs were significantly reduced. Finite element analysis and mechanical testing of the Synbone femoral model revealed that the fixation effect of the PHILOS group was superior to that of the Cable group; consequently, PHILOS plates can be used to effectively fix fractures around the proximal femoral prosthesis. Conclusion: PHILOS plates are initially used in the treatment of Vancouver B1 PFF, which may be a good choice due to their simpler operation, lower medical costs, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.

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.

Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hip arthroplasty (HA) is commonly performed to treat various hip pathologies. Its volume is expected to rise further due to the increasing age of the population. Complication rates are low; however, periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are a rare, albeit serious, complication with substantial economic impact. While current guidelines propose revision with long-stemmed prostheses for all Vancouver B2 and B3 PFF, some recent research papers suggest that open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) could lead to an equivalent outcome. Our aim was to summarize the evidence, elucidating under which circumstances ORIF leads to a favorable outcome after B2 and B3 PFF compared with revision surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on patients treated with ORIF and with stem revision after B2 and/or B3 fractures. Extracted information included initial pathology, stem fixation mechanism, bone quality and stem stability at the time of PFF, clinical outcomes, and mortality. Results of individual studies were summarized in a table in lieu of a quantitative data synthesis due to a lack of standardized information.

RESULTS

We identified 14 original research articles including both patients treated with ORIF and with stem revision after B2 and/or B3 PFF. Five studies included statistical comparisons, all were in favor of ORIF or indeterminate. The common lack of rigorous statistical analyses and significant methodological weaknesses made identification of outcome predictors impossible.

CONCLUSION

The choice of treatment modality for PFF depends on fracture, implant, and bone characteristics. Recent data show that successful outcome can be achieved without revising loose stems. ORIF may be a viable option if bone stock is adequate around uncemented or tapered polished stems with an intact cement mantle and the fracture geometry allows stable anatomic reconstruction. Conceptional considerations support this idea, but more data are needed to identify outcome predictors.