Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: the stability of the implant dictates the type of treatment
© Springer-Verlag 2010
Published: 9 March 2010
The increasing incidence of complications after hip replacement surgery is a consequence of two main factors: the prolonged survival time in the general population and the increasing number of primary implants made worldwide in the last decades. Among the possible complications, periprosthetic femoral fractures represent a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. In terms of treatment, it is crucial to distinguish between intraoperative (or perioperative) fractures and post-traumatic fractures. The former may be minor fractures that do not necessitate surgical treatment. Post-traumatic fractures usually require operative treatment and are associated both with predisposing factors such as osteolysis, osteopenia and aseptic loosening of the implant as well as with determining factors such as minor traumatic events.
The incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures in cementless total hip arthroplasty ranges from 1 to 20% and is higher in revision surgery [2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15]. Lower rates are observed in cemented procedures where the need for a tight press fit is less. These fractures are usually located in the calcar region or directly in the trochanter, and they are often the consequence of excessive reaming with rasps and broaches during preparation of the medullary canal or, inadvertently, during insertion of the definitive stem. Although fixation of intraoperative fractures with wire cerclage or plates is effective, it is recommended to avoid such events through careful preoperative planning and optimal surgical technique.
Regarding postoperative periprosthetic fractures, the incidence ranges between 1 and 4%, again with higher rates in revision surgery [2, 6, 10, 12]. These fractures are sometimes considered pathological because the causative factors, besides minor trauma, are aseptic loosening, primary and secondary osteoporosis, and conditions predisposing to osteopenia (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, Paget’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, poliomyelitis, myasthenia gravis and polyneuropathies).
The Vancouver classification of periprosthetic fractures of the hip [4, 5] is considered a reliable system for grading these fractures as well as for guiding treatment decisions. In particular, the Vancouver classification helps distinguish stable from unstable fractures requiring fixation as well as stable from unstable implants requiring revision. Fractures involving the trochanteric area are categorized as type A (Ag and Al for the greater and lesser trochanter, respectively), fractures about the stem or tip of the implant are type B, and fractures distal to the tip of the stem are type C. Type B fractures are further divided into subtype B1 when adjacent to a well fixed stem, B2 in presence of a loose stem, and B3 when associated with marked osteopenia or loss of bone substance. According to this classification system, most of these fractures require surgical treatment.
The choice of treatment is based upon the type of fracture, the integrity and quality of the bone stock, and the stability of the original implant according to an algorithm proposed by Masri et al. [13, 18]. Sometimes in selected type A fractures, it is helpful to test the stability with stress manoeuvres performed under fluoroscopic visualization. However, conservative treatment in non-selected cases usually requires prolonged periods of bed rest (with consequential functional disability), which is not recommended for elderly persons who often have other diseases and poor general conditions.
Type C fractures are preferably treated with ORIF, through the use of plates with screws and cerclage wires. These devices allow good primary stability of the implant, early recovery of weight bearing, and good final functional outcomes. Alternatively, it is possible to use retrograde femoral nailing for very distal fractures of the femur, located more than 6 cm from the tip of the stem.
The current gold standard for the treatment of post-traumatic periprosthetic femoral fractures is surgery, with an exception for selected simple fractures having a stable implant, which can be treated conservatively with bed rest, traction, casts or braces. Consequently, it is imperative to correctly identify the type of fracture and the stability of the implant for correct surgical planning. The Vancouver system is helpful to guide treatment choices, although the most reliable way to ascertain stability of the femoral stem is by intraoperative evaluation. When ORIF is indicated, the use of plates, proximally hooked in an anatomical configuration to the greater trochanter and accepting screws, cerclage wires or cables for transcortical fixation, are of great utility. Structural cortical auto- and allografts are also indicated to augment the fixation in cases of severe comminution or insufficient cortical bone stock. In selected fractures adjacent to an unstable stem, implant revision is mandatory. For this purpose, we prefer to use a non-cemented, modular long stem, with distal cortical fixation and antirotational slots, which allows us to reconstruct the proximal femur around the stem. This option is helpful when the proximal femur is comminuted from a traumatic event or osteotomized for the revision of a previously inserted cemented stem. Furthermore, the modularity of this implant allows us to adopt any last minute changes to correct leg length discrepancies, and to achieve the necessary articular stability by balancing the soft tissues. However, irrespective of the surgical treatment adopted, it is of paramount importance to understand that the final result also depends on early functional recovery and social independence, achieved only with an effective rehabilitation program and social support. Finally, notwithstanding the technical aspects of the treatment of these fractures, we should always inform patients about the real expectations from these difficult clinical situations.
Conflict of interest statement
- Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 327:238–246PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Berry DJ (1999) Epidemiology of periprosthetic fractures after major joint replacement: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 30:183–190PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bethea JS III, De Andrade JR, Fleming LL, Lindenbaum SD, Welch RB (1982) Proximal femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:95–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Marsi BA, Duncan CP (1999) Classification of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 30:215–220PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Marsi BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15:59–62PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fitzgerald RH Jr, Brindley GW, Kavanagh BF (1988) The uncemented total hip arthroplasty: intraoperative femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:61–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Giannini S, Moroni A, Piras F, Guzzardella M, Faldini C, Mosca M (1997) Epidemiologia delle fratture di femore nelle artroprotesi d’anca. Giorn Ital Ortop Traum Suppl XXIII(3):19–28Google Scholar
- Haddad FS, Duncan CP, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Gross AE, Chandler HP (2002) Periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed implant: use of cortical onlay allografts with or without a plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:945–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kavanagh BF (1992) Femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 23:249–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee SR, Bostrom MP (2006) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 19:253–260Google Scholar
- Lewallen DJ, Berry DJ (1998) Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect 47:243–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:80–95PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rosemberg AG (2006) Managing periprosthetic femoral stem fractures. J Arthroplasty 21:101–104View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt AH, Kyle RF (2002) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. Orthop Clin N Am 33:143–152View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tadross TS, Nanu AM, Buchanan MJ, Checketts RG (2000) Dall-Miles plating for periprosthetic B1 fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty 15:47–51PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tsiridis E, Krikler S, Giannoudis PV (2007) Periprosthetic femoral fractures: current aspect of management. Injury 38(6):649–650PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wilson D, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2001) Periprosthetic fractures: an operative algorithm. Orthopedics 24:869–870PubMedGoogle Scholar