Surgeon-Stratified Periprosthetic Fracture Risk in a Single-Hospital Cohort of 1531 Uncemented ABG-II Femoral Stems at Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Purpose

Late periprosthetic fracture risk with uncemented ABG-II femoral stems at primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported before, but single-hospital surgeon-stratified reports of this implant have never been published. We asked whether periprosthetic fracture rates of ABG-II femoral stems implanted at a single tertiary hospital depended on patients' age, gender and the operating surgeon.

Methods

The study included 1531 consecutive primary ABG-II femoral stems implanted at a single tertiary hospital between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed after 3.6-10.6 years of follow-up.

Results

In the cohort, we recorded 8 intraoperative, 22 early postoperative (within 90 days of implantation) and 26 late periprosthetic fractures (over 90 days postoperatively). The revision rate of ABG-II femoral stems was 5.1/100 component-years for early and 0.3/100 component-years for late periprosthetic fractures. The Kaplan-Meier cumulative probability of periprosthetic fracture was 2.1% at one, 2.3% at 2, 3.2% at 5, and 6.5% at 10 years after the implantation. Higher patient's age at operation was an independent risk factor of subsequent periprosthetic fracture (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.10; p < 0.01), regardless of the operating surgeon. Most of the fractured femora were Dorr type C (stovepipe).

Conclusion

The study presents the largest published ABG-II femoral stem cohort from a single hospital so far with 9291 component-years of observation. Periprosthetic fracture risk of ABG-II increased with patients' age, had no variability between different surgeons, and was considerably higher from other uncemented femoral stems used at the same hospital.

Level of Evidence

III.

Giant Cell Tumor of Bone Versus Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumor - Similarities and Differences

Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) and tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) share misleadingly similar names, soft texture and brown color macroscopically, osteoclast-like multinucleated giant cells microscopically and localisation in the musculoskeletal system. However, these two tumor types are biologically and clinically two distinct entities with different natural courses of progression and considerably different modes of surgical and medical treatment. In this article, we provide a detailed update on the similarities and the differences between both tumor types.GCTB is a locally aggressive osteolytic bone tumor, commonly seen in patients in their third decade of life. It usually occurs as a solitary lesion in the meta-epiphyseal region of long bones. It can be diagnosed using plain radiographic imaging, CT radiography or MRI to estimate the tumor extent, soft tissue and joint involvement. GCTB is usually treated with intralesional excision by curettage. Systemically, it can be treated with bisphosphonates and denosumab or radiotherapy.TGCT is a rare, slowly progressing tumor of synovial tissue, affecting the joint, tendon sheath or bursa, mostly seen in middle-aged patients. TGCT is usually not visible on radiographs and MRI is mostly used to enable assessment of potential bone involvement and distinguishing between two TGCT types. Localised TGCT is mostly treated with marginal surgical resection, while diffuse TGCT is optimally treated with total synovectomy and is more difficult to remove. Additionally, radiotherapy, intraarticular injection of radioactive isotopes, anti-TNF-α antibodies and targeted medications may be used.