Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures treated with the uncemented Wagner revision stem

Periprosthetic Fracture After Cementless Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Tapered, Fluted Monobloc Stem: A Retrospective Long-Term Analysis of 121 Cases

Background: The use of tapered monobloc stems in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA) has shown excellent results, with low implant-dependent failures due to aseptic loosening. Infection is one of the main failure reasons, but further problems, like periprosthetic fractures (PPFs), may endanger the function and duration of the implant in the long run. Methods: A consecutive series of 121 cases after femoral RTHA with a monobloc device was retrospectively investigated, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed. The mean follow-up was 13.0 (range: 0.8-23.8) years. Results: PPF occurred in six patients during follow-up. The cumulative risk for PPF was 5.2% (95% CI: 1.1-9.4%) after 23.8 years. Female gender was associated with a significantly higher risk compared to male gender (9.1% (95% CI: 2.1-16.1%) after 23.1 years vs. 0% after 23.8 years; log-rank p = 0.0034). Patients operated with stems with a length equal to or longer than the calculated median length were also at a significantly higher risk of PPF during follow-up (10.2% (95% CI: 2.4-17.9%) after 23.8 years vs. 0% after 23.1 years; log-rank p = 0.0158). Diabetes at the time of index operation also significantly influenced the occurrence of a PPF during follow-up (n = 4 patients with PPF out of 107 without (4.0% (95% CI: 0.2-7.8%) after 23.8 years vs. n = 2 out of 14 with diabetes (15.4% (95% CI: 0-35.0%) after 21.1 years; log-rank p = 0.0368). The failure rate with implant removal as an endpoint due to aseptic loosening was 0%, and with infection it was 3.4% (95% CI: 0.1-6.7%), after 23.8 years. Conclusions: Although no removal of the implant due to a PPF was necessary, the cumulative risk for PPF after femoral revision with a tapered and fluted monobloc stem was higher in this long-term follow-up series compared to implant failure due to infection or aseptic loosening. Female gender and diabetes was associated with a significantly higher risk of PPF during follow-up. The use of longer stems than necessary is not preventive of PPF, and should be avoided.

A Consecutive Series of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Contemporary Monoblock Versus Modular Revision Stems: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are the implant design of choice for managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs), producing reliable results over the past few decades. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with contemporary monoblock versus modular TFTs.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 113 patients (72 women, 64%, mean age 70 years [range, 26 to 96]) who had a B2 PFF were treated with either a monoblock (n = 42) or modular (n = 71) TFT stem between 2008 and 2021. The mean body mass index was 30 ± 7. The mean follow-up was 2.9 years. A radiographic review was performed to assess leg length and offset restoration, endosteal cortical contact length, and stem subsidence. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine survivorship without revision, reoperation, or dislocation.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the restoration of leg length (0.3 ± 8.0 mm) or offset (2.8 ± 8.2 mm) between the monoblock and modular cohorts (P > .05). Mean endosteal cortical contact length (47.2 ± 26.6 versus 46.7 ± 2 6.4 mm, P = .89) and stem subsidence (2.7 ± 3.5 versus 2.4 ± 3.2 mm, P = .66) did not differ. No difference in patient-reported outcome measures (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement; Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical and Mental; visual analog score; and Lower Extremity Activity Scale) between the groups was observed. Survivorship at 2 years free from reoperation, revision, and dislocation was 90.4, 90.3, and 97.6%, respectively, for the monoblock cohort; and 84.0, 86.9, and 90.0%, respectively, for the modular cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in radiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between patients treated with monoblock or modular TFTs in this large series of B2 PFFs.

Management of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures, Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify and analyze the current evidence for the use of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) constructs compared with conventional revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) for the management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was conducted. Prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. No limitation was placed on publication date, with only articles printed in English eligible.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were retrospective studies comparing ORIF and rTHA for the management of Vancouver B2 PFFs.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was the overall complication rate. Other outcomes included as rate of dislocation, revision operation, refracture, infection, nonunion, and subsidence/loosening. Twenty-four studies were included totaling 1621 patients, of which 331 were treated with ORIF and 1280 with rTHA.

CONCLUSION

The 1621 patients included comprised a mixture of different fracture patterns, prostheses, and patient comorbidities. The overall complication rate for ORIF was 24% versus 18% for rTHA (P = 0.13). The results demonstrate that rTHA has a similar revision rate to ORIF in PFFs with a loose femoral component and adequate bone stock. ORIF was superior to rTHA in prevention of postoperative dislocation; however, there was no difference between other complications. This review suggests a potential role of both ORIF and rTHA in the management of Vancouver B2 PFFs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Long-term outcomes of Wagner self-locking stem with bone allograft for Paprosky type II and III bone defects in revision total hip arthroplasty: A mean 15.7-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Massive bone defects represent a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Wagner self-locking (SL) stem is a favorable option for this technique; however, its long-term outcomes with bone allograft have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of this stem with bone allograft for Paprosky type II and III bone defects in revision THA.

METHODS

A total of 38 patients (40 hips) who underwent revision THA with the Wagner SL stem were retrospectively reviewed. Bone allograft was placed in every patient. Clinical outcomes were determined using the Japanese Orthopedic Association's hip scoring system (JOA hip score). Stem subsidence, stem fixation, and remodeling of the grafted bone were assessed radiographically. The survival rate of the stem was assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The mean JOA hip score at the latest follow-up was 75.3 points. Stem subsidence of ≥10 mm was observed in four hips (10.0%). Moreover, 67.5% (27/40) of hips were stable, and 27.5% (11/40) had fibrous fixation. Bone restoration was observed in 25 hips (62.5%). At a mean follow-up of 15.7 years, the cumulative stem survival rates were 96.6%and 91.7% with "stem re-revision for loosening" and "stem re-revision for any reason" as the end points, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Wagner SL stem with bone allograft for proximal femoral bone defects in revision THA is a clinically beneficial procedure.

Anchoring of a Kinked Uncemented Femoral Stem after Preparation with a Straight or a Kinked Reamer

Objective

To investigate a stem‐adjusted preparation of the femur with a kinked reamer and to determine whether this approach results in higher primary stability of a kinked stem than straight reaming of the intramedullary canal.

Methods

Ten cementless stems with a kinked design were implanted in synthetic femurs after preparation of the femoral canal with 2 different reamer designs (straight reaming [SR] group vs kinked reaming [KR] group). The specimens were analyzed using CT to determine the anchoring length and examined with a mechanical testing system to establish their axial stiffness, torsional stiffness, and migration distance after 10 000 gait cycles.

Results

The stem migration distances did not differ significantly between the groups (SR group 0.51 ± 0.16 mm vs KR group 0.36 ± 0.03 mm, P = 0.095). Only for the SR group, a correlation was found between the completely conical anchorage length and absolute stem migration (P < 0.05, R = 0.89). Regarding the torsional stiffness, no differences were observed between the study groups (SR group 6.48 ± 0.17 Nm/° vs KR group 6.52 ± 0.25 Nm/°, P = 0.398). In the KR group, significantly higher axial stiffness values were measured than in the SR group (SR group 1.68 ± 0.14 kN/mm vs KR group 2.09 ± 0.13 kN/mm, P = 0.008).

Conclusions

The implantation of a kinked stem after kinked conical intramedullary preparation of the proximal femur showed equivalent results regarding anchoring length, stem migration, and torsional stiffness to those for straight conical reaming. The specimens with kinked reaming showed significantly higher axial stiffness values.

The Proximal and Distal Femoral Canal Geometry Influences Cementless Stem Anchorage and Revision Hip and Knee Implant Stability

Although cementless revision arthroplasty of the hip has become the gold standard, revision arthroplasty of the distal femur is controversial. This study evaluated the anchoring principles of different femoral revision stem designs in extended bone defect situations, taking into account the anatomical conditions of the proximal and distal femur, and the resulting primary stability. Cementless press-fit stems of 4 different designs were implanted in synthetic femurs. The specimens were analyzed by computed tomography and were tested considering axial/torsional stiffness and migration resistance. Different stem designs anchored in different femoral canal geometries achieved comparable primary stability. Despite considerably different anchorage lengths, no difference in migration behavior or stiffness was found. Both in the distal femur and in the proximal femur, the conical stems showed a combination of conical and 3-point anchorage. Regarding the cylindrical stem tested, a much shorter anchorage length was sufficient in the distal femur to achieve comparable primary stability. In the investigated osseous defect model, the stem design (conical vs cylindrical), not the geometry of the femoral canal (proximal vs distal), was decisive regarding the circumferential anchorage length. For the conical stems, it can be postulated that there are reserves available for achieving a conical-circular fixation as a result of the large contact length. For the cylindrical stems, only a small reserve for a stable anchorage can be assumed. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(3):e369-e375.].

A systematic review of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures by performing a systematic review of the methods of surgical treatment which have been reported.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For inclusion, studies required a minimum of ten patients with a Vancouver type B2 and/or ten patients with a Vancouver type B3 fracture, a minimum mean follow-up of two years and outcomes which were matched to the type of fracture. Studies were also required to report the rate of re-operation as an outcome measure. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database.

Results

A total of 22 studies were included based on the eligibility criteria, including 343 B2 fractures and 167 B3 fractures. The mean follow-up ranged from 32 months to 74 months. Of 343 Vancouver B2 fractures, the treatment in 298 (86.8%) involved revision arthroplasty and 45 (12.6%) were treated with internal fixation alone. A total of 37 patients (12.4%) treated with revision arthroplasty and six (13.3%) treated by internal fixation only underwent further re-operation. Of 167 Vancouver B3 fractures, the treatment in 160 (95.8%) involved revision arthroplasty and eight (4.8%) were treated with internal fixation without revision. A total of 23 patients (14.4%) treated with revision arthroplasty and two (28.6%) treated only with internal fixation required re-operation.

Conclusion

A significant proportion, particularly of B2 fractures, were treated without revision of the stem. These were associated with a higher rate of re-operation. The treatment of B3 fractures without revision of the stem resulted in a high rate of re-operation. This demonstrates the importance of careful evaluation and accurate characterisation of the fracture at the time of presentation to ensure the correct management. There is a need for improvement in the reporting of data in case series recording the outcome of the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures. We have suggested a minimum dataset to improve the quality of data in studies dealing with these fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):17–25.

Revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fracture using an uncemented modular tapered conical stem

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a potentially devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty, with historically high rates of complication and failure because of the technical challenges of surgery, as well as the prevalence of advanced age and comorbidity in the patients at risk.

This study describes the short-term outcome after revision arthroplasty using a modular, titanium, tapered, conical stem for PFF in a series of 38 fractures in 37 patients.

The mean age of the cohort was 77 years (47 to 96). A total of 27 patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of at least 3. At a mean follow-up of 35 months (4 to 66) the mean Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 35 (15 to 48) and comorbidity was significantly associated with a poorer OHS. All fractures united and no stem needed to be revised. Three hips in three patients required further surgery for infection, recurrent PFF and recurrent dislocation and three other patients required closed manipulation for a single dislocation. One stem subsided more than 5 mm but then stabilised and required no further intervention.

In this series, a modular, tapered, conical stem provided a versatile reconstruction solution with a low rate of complications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1031–7.

Non-modular tapered fluted titanium stems in hip revision surgery

Non-modular tapered fluted, titanium stems are available for use in femoral revision. The combination of taper and flutes on the stem provides axial and rotational stability, respectively. The material and surface properties of the stem promotes bone on-growth. If the surgeon is confident and reasonably experienced in the surgical use of this sort of design and the case is relatively straightforward, a non-modular design is effective. It also potentially reduces implant inventory, and circumvents the potential problems of taper junction corrosion and fatigue fracture. There are reports of excellent survival, good clinical and functional results and evidence of subsequent increase in proximal bone stock.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):56–9.

Periprosthetic fractures around loose femoral components

The development of periprosthetic fractures around loose femoral components can be a devastating event for patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA). As indications for THA expand in an aging population and to use in younger patients, these fractures are increasing in incidence. This review covers the epidemiology, risk factors, prevention, and clinical management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. Treatment principles and reconstructive options are discussed, along with outcomes and complications. Femoral revision with a long-stem prosthesis or a modular tapered stem is the mainstay of treatment and has demonstrated good outcomes in the literature. Other reconstruction options are available, depending on bone quality. Surgeons must have a sound understanding of the diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.