Skip to main content
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Download PDF

Comparative outcomes of uncemented and cemented stem revision in managing periprosthetic femoral fractures: a retrospective cohort study

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology volume 25, Article number: 35 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) following hip arthroplasty, especially Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, present a challenge due to the association with a loose femoral stem, necessitating either open reduction and internal fixation or stem revision. This study aims to compare outcomes between uncemented and cemented stem revisions in managing Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, considering factors such as hip-related complications, reoperations, and clinical outcome.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Danderyd Hospital, Sweden, from 2008 to 2022, encompassing operatively treated Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures. Patients were categorized into uncemented and cemented stem revision groups, with data collected on complications, revision surgeries, fracture healing times, and clinical outcomes.

Results

A total of 241 patients were identified. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in patient demographics, with the cemented group comprising older patients and more females. Follow up ranged from 1 to 15 years. Average follow up time was 3.9 years for the cemented group and 5.5 years for the uncemented group. The cemented stems demonstrated lower rates of dislocation (8.9% versus 22.5%, P = 0.004) and stem loosening (0.6% versus 9.3%, P = 0.004) than the uncemented method. Moreover, the cemented group exhibited shorter fracture healing times (11.4 weeks versus 16.7 weeks, P = 0.034). There was no difference in clinical outcome between groups. Mortality was higher in the cemented group.

Conclusions

This retrospective study indicates that cemented stem revision for Vancouver B2–3 fractures is correlated with lower dislocation and stem loosening rates, necessitating fewer reoperations and shorter fracture healing times compared with the uncemented approach. The cemented group had a notably higher mortality rate, urging caution in its clinical interpretation.

Level of evidence III

Introduction

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) following hip arthroplasty present a significant challenge in orthopedics and are becoming increasingly common due to the number of primary and revision total hip arthroplasties being performed [1, 2]. The Vancouver classification system categorizes periprosthetic fractures around hip implants into four types (A, B, and C) based on fracture location and extent relative to the implant, aiding surgeons in treatment decisions [3]. Vancouver B2–3 fractures pose a distinct challenge, as they are associated with a loose femoral stem, indicating inherent instability that frequently requires more than fracture stabilization alone [4]. Addressing these fractures involves choosing between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or stem revision.

The management of Vancouver B2–3 fractures often leaned toward stem revision, aiming to restore biomechanical stability, which can be performed using uncemented or cemented techniques. Cemented stem revision could entail higher risks of systemic complications, including bone cement implantation syndrome [5, 6]. On the other hand, uncemented stem revision requires a prosthetic stem designed to allow bone growth for long-term fixation [7]. While this method might reduce the risk of cement-related complications, achieving immediate stability can be challenging, potentially leading to increased risks of fracture displacement or subsidence [8]. The comparative effectiveness of uncemented versus cemented stem revision in treating PFFs is inadequately explored, and management paradigms are changing [9, 10]. The potential risks associated with stem revision necessitate a comprehensive evaluation of the treatment outcomes associated with both methods [11]. This study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes, including mortality, between uncemented and cemented stem revision in the treatment of Vancouver B2 and B3 PFF.

Methods

Study design and setting

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Orthopedic Department of Danderyd Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, spanning from 2008 to 2022. Danderyd Hospital, affiliated with the Karolinska Institute, serves approximately 800,000 inhabitants. Data were collected using REDCap electronic data capture tools until September 2023, with a minimum 1-year follow-up postsurgery [12]. Ethical approval was obtained, and the study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for reporting observational cohorts [13].

Participants

Patients were identified from the local surgical planning system, medical records, and the Swedish Arthroplasty register. The study encompassed a consecutive series of all surgically treated periprosthetic Vancouver B2–3 fractures.

Patient flow and baseline data

A total of 241 patients were identified during the study period (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Chart of patient flow

Full size image

The cemented group was older, had fewer females, and were less cognitive intact. There was no difference in Vancouver class (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study participants
Full size table

Surgery

The stability of all stems was assessed preoperatively and classified as Vancouver B1 fractures if deemed stable and ineligible for the study or B2/B3 fractures with loose stem. Procedures were performed by 1 of 19 experienced consultant orthopedic surgeons specializing in traumatology or hip arthroplasty. The decision for implant revision or in situ fixation was at the discretion of individual surgeons. All surgeries utilized the posterior approach.

Revision group

Stem revision procedures involved either an uncemented, distally anchored modular femoral stem (MP, Link Sweden, Stockholm) or a choice among cemented femoral stem options: CPT (Zimmer-Biomet, USA), Lubinus SP II (Waldemar Link, Hamburg, Germany), or the cemented, distally anchored modular femoral stem (MP, Waldemar Link, Hamburg, Germany). Cemented stems were categorized by length (short, < 150 mm and long, ≥ 150 mm). The approach for uncemented stems focused on meticulous cement removal from the femoral canal, while a “cement-in-cement” technique was employed for cemented stems, with minimal cement removal to accommodate the new stem [14, 15]. Supplementary stabilization techniques, such as cerclage wires or proximal femoral plates, were used as deemed clinically necessary.

Outcomes and data collection

The outcomes encompassed hip-related complications, reoperations, and clinical outcomes. Data were retrieved using the Swedish personal identification number, hospital databases, routine follow-ups, and a digital case report form. The Swedish Arthroplasty Register aided in identifying reoperations beyond the Stockholm regional area.

Variables

Data collection included patient demographics, cognitive status, ASA score, primary indication for surgery, time to radiological healing, and hip complications necessitating reoperations or closed reduction of dislocations. Fracture classification utilized the Vancouver B2–3 system, assessed by plain radiograph [16] and confirmed during surgery. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated through medical chart reviews and follow-up visits, grading patient outcomes through clinical evaluation on an arbitrary scale good, intermediate, poor, or deceased due to surgery. Clinical outcome was also based on fracture healing time. Radiological healing was assessed by radiologists, using plain radiographs, who provided reports stating that there was no evidence against healing or that healing was present. Clinical healing was evaluated by the treating physician; if there was radiological evidence that did not contradict healing, the patient was mobile, able to bear weight, had no severe pain, etc., it was considered healed.

Statistics

No separate power calculation was performed for this descriptive study. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was utilized. The primary outcome was the time until reoperation or death. The covariates were BMI, age, sex, cognitive function, Vancouver class, ASA category, and surgical indication. Hazard ratios are presented as crude and adjusted hazard ratio. Descriptive statistics were used for groups comparisons. Between-group comparisons were conducted using Student’s t-test, and a post-hoc Bonferroni correction was applied to the primary endpoint to manage multiplicity. Clinical score data, which were non-normally distributed and ordinal, respectively, underwent analysis using Mann–Whitney U-test. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0.

Ethics and registration

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Karolinska Institutet (entry number dnr 2013/285-31/2).

Results

Uncemented cases utilized mostly modular long stems while cemented cases had a mix of long stems, standard length stems and a few modular long stems. Some cases in both the cemented and uncemented groups also underwent simultaneous cup revision (Table 2).

Table 2 Treatment methods in the cemented and uncemented groups
Full size table

Hip-related complications and reoperations

A total of 24 (12%) patients in the cemented group and 49 (38%) patients in the uncemented group were reoperated. Uncemented arthroplasty showed a significantly higher risk for reoperations compared with cemented arthroplasty when adjusted for variables [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2.4, crude HR of 2.1]. Other factors such as sex, ASA category, Vancouver type, BMI, cognitive dysfunction, and surgical indication did not exhibit significant associations with reoperations (Table 3).

Table 3 Cox proportional hazard regression with crude and adjusted models
Full size table

Significantly higher rates reoperation was observed in the uncemented group compared with the cemented group (P =  < 0.001). Cup revision and stem revision were the most common reoperations in the uncemented group, and debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) was the most common reoperation in the cemented group (Table 4).

Table 4 Complications and reoperations between groups
Full size table

In the cemented group, the incidence of dislocation was lower (8.9%) compared with the uncemented group (22.5%) (P = 0.0043). No significant differences were found in the rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), nonunion at various sites, new fractures distal to the stem (Vancouver C), or nonunion in the middle or trochanter. The uncemented group exhibited a higher incidence of stem loosening (9.3%) compared with the cemented group (0.6%) (P = 0.004). The total number of complications was 27 among 24 patients in the cemented group and 68 among 49 patients in the uncemented group (Table 4).

Clinical outcome

The duration for fractures to heal was notably shorter in the cemented treatment group, averaging 11.4 weeks (±4.3), in contrast to 16.7 weeks (±8.8) in the uncemented group (P = 0.034). There were no statistical difference in clinical hip outcomes during follow-up. The time to death was notably shorter in the cemented group (47 weeks) compared with the uncemented group (Table 5).

Table 5 Clinical outcome between cemented and uncemented stem revision
Full size table

Mortality was higher in the cemented group compared with the uncemented group when adjusted for variables (P = 0.002) (Table 6) (Fig. 2).

Table 6 The 30 day, 1 year, and 2 year mortality rate
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Cox regression of probability of death following revision surgery for PFF. Adjusted for BMI, age, sex, index surgery, ASA class, Vancouver type, and cognitive function

Full size image

Discussion

The management of PFF following hip arthroplasty, particularly the Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures associated with a loose femoral stem, is a challenge. In this retrospective cohort study, we found differences in complication and reoperation rate between the uncemented and cemented group. Patients with uncemented stems experienced almost double the complication rate requiring reoperations compared with cemented stems. Dislocations were the most common complications among both cemented and uncemented stems, which is in concordance with previous studies [17, 18]. Additionally, uncemented stems exhibited higher rates of stem loosening, the cause of this remains unanswered in this study. However, the higher rates of stem loosening among uncemented stems might be due to selection bias, as patients with cemented stems were older and might have died before experiencing stem loosening. Despite our findings of trends favoring better outcomes with cemented stems, we observed notably higher mortality rates in this group, accompanied by a shorter time to death among deceased patients. It is worth nothing that patients in the cemented group were both older and less cognitively intact than the uncemented group, possibly indicating a systematic selection bias and confounding. Surgeons might be more prone to choose cemented stem revision when dealing with frail and patient with comorbidities, skewing mortality data. Such an approach have been suggested by previous studies [19, 20].

The current scientific evidence is conflicting regarding the use of cemented versus uncemented stem in PFF management [17, 21,22,23]. While some studies suggest no definitive influence of fixation choice on implant survival, others indicate potential differences in implant survival rates, especially in older patients [24]. One study involving 86 patients with comparable femoral bone defects found no definitive influence of fixation choice on implant survival [25]. In contrast, another study of 209 patients indicated that uncemented revision stems led to inferior implant survival compared with cemented revision stems [26]. Furthermore, research based on registries suggests that uncemented revision stems might exhibit lower implant survival rates compared with cemented stems, especially in older patients [27,28,29,30]. These findings are shared by our study, which showed higher complication rates in uncemented stems. The use of cemented versus uncemented has also been shown to not compromise the healing of femoral fractures in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone, altered mobility, poor balance, and reduced cognitive capacity, this is in contrast to our findings, which indicate that cemented stem revision has a shorter time to healing than uncemented [20]. An alternative to stem revision might be ORIF, which is associated with lower blood loss, shorter operating times, and fewer reoperations [31,32,33,34].

The higher risk for revision surgery with uncemented stems due to dislocation is in line with register-based reports on elective revision surgery for stem loosening [8, 35]. The increased incidence of dislocation in uncemented revision stems could in part be the result of stem subsidence. The use of dual-mobility cups as part of the revision surgery could possibly reduce the rate of dislocation [36, 37].

Future prospective studies with more standardized protocols and randomization strategies could help mitigate biases and provide more robust evidence for guiding clinical decision-making in treating periprosthetic femoral fractures. Collaborative multicenter research can offer larger sample sizes and diverse populations for more robust analyses, in particular in terms of different stems used on cemented or uncemented revision. Understanding surgeon preferences and exploring alternative fixation methods, such as three-dimensional printed implants, are also promising areas for further investigation [38].

Surgeon preferences, clinical judgment, and individual patient characteristics might influence the selection of the surgical approach, leading to inherent differences between the groups observed in our study. The tendency to opt for a uncemented approach in Vancouver B3 fractures, driven by concerns about stability and the risk of complications, might influence the observed outcomes favorably for the uncemented group by selecting cases with better prognoses. In particular, fractures that are immediately anatomically reduceable might benefit from cemented approach [14]. While efforts were made to ensure comprehensive data collection and minimize biases through stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, the retrospective nature of the study inherently limits our ability to account for these potential confounders and biases. Moreover, the Vancouver classification system is deemed reliable and effective in guiding surgeons when addressing periprosthetic femoral fractures; yet, its application can pose challenges, particularly for fractures surrounding cemented polished tapered stems [16, 39]. Proposed modifications to the classification system, such as introducing subclasses for intact cement-bone interfaces (B2W) and loose cement (B2L), aim to refine its applicability in such contexts [40].

This retrospective study highlights advantages in the cemented approach in managing PFF following hip arthroplasty, showing lower rates of dislocation, stem loosening, and shorter fracture healing times. However, caution is warranted in interpreting these findings due to inherent limitations, such as selection bias and higher mortality, in the cemented group. Further prospective research with standardized protocols is essential to refine treatment strategies and optimize patient care for periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Availability of data and materials

No additional data are available. Data are available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

ORIF:

Open reduction and internal fixation

PFF:

Periprosthetic femoral fractures

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infection

REDCap:

Research electronic data capture

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

References

  1. Meek RMD, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR (2011) The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(1):96–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdel MP, Watts CD, Houdek MT, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (2016) Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J 98-B(4):461–467

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS (2008) European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1576–1579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15(1):59–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG (2003) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(11):2156–2162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chammout G, Muren O, Laurencikas E, Bodén H, Kelly-Pettersson P, Sjöö H et al (2017) More complications with uncemented than cemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Acta Orthop 88(2):145–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan T, Grindlay D, Ollivere BJ, Scammell BE, Manktelow ARJ, Pearson RG (2017) A systematic review of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 99-B(4 Supple B):17–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tyson Y, Hillman C, Majenburg N, Sköldenberg O, Rolfson O, Kärrholm J et al (2021) Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size. Acta Orthop 92(2):143–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Slullitel PA, Garcia-Barreiro GG, Oñativia JI, Zanotti G, Comba F, Piccaluga F et al (2021) Selected Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished femoral components can be safely treated with osteosynthesis. Bone Joint J 103-B(7):1222–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Powell-Bowns MFR, Oag E, Ng N, Pandit H, Moran M, Patton JT et al (2021) Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures involving the Exeter cemented stem. Bone Joint J 103-B(2):309–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rutter PD, Panesar SS, Darzi A, Donaldson LJ (2014) What is the risk of death or severe harm due to bone cement implantation syndrome among patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur? A patient safety surveillance study. BMJ Open 4(6):e004853

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP et al (2008) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Briant-Evans TW, Veeramootoo D, Tsiridis E, Hubble MJ (2009) Cement-in-cement stem revision for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. A 3-year follow-up of 23 cases. Acta Orthop 80(5):548–552

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Woodbridge AB, Hubble MJ, Whitehouse SL, Wilson MJ, Howell JR, Timperley AJ (2019) The exeter short revision stem for cement-in-cement femoral revision: a five to twelve year review. J Arthroplasty 34(7S):S297-301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Karam J, Campbell P, Desai S, Hunter M (2020) Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in cemented and uncemented stems according to Vancouver classification: observation of a new fracture pattern. J Orthop Surg Res 10(15):100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (2014) periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(2):599–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moreta J, Uriarte I, Ormaza A, Mosquera J, Iza K, Aguirre U et al (2019) Outcomes of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients. Hip Int 29(2):184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gjertsen JE, Nilsen D, Furnes O, Hallan G, Kroken G, Dybvik E et al (2024) Promoting cemented fixation of the femoral stem in elderly female hip arthroplasty patients and elderly hip fracture patients: a retrospective cohort study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Acta Orthop 23(95):130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sponer P, Korbel M, Grinac M, Prokes L, Bezrouk A, Kucera T (2021) The outcomes of cemented femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in the elderly: comparison with cementless stems. Clin Interv Aging 16:1869–1876

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Capone A, Congia S, Civinini R, Marongiu G (2017) Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and current treatment. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 14(2):189–196

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim YH, Mansukhani SA, Kim JS, Park JW (2017) Use of locking plate and strut onlay allografts for periprosthetic fracture around well-fixed femoral components. J Arthroplasty 32(1):166–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. González-Martín D, Pais-Brito JL, González-Casamayor S, Guerra-Ferraz A, Martín-Vélez P, Herrera-Pérez M (2021) Periprosthetic hip fractures with a loose stem: open reduction and internal fixation versus stem revision. J Arthroplasty 36(9):3318–3325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Iorio R, Healy WL, Presutti AH (2008) A prospective outcomes analysis of femoral component fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23(5):662–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hernigou P, Dupuys N, Delambre J, Guissou I, Poignard A, Allain J et al (2015) Long, titanium, cemented stems decreased late periprosthetic fractures and revisions in patients with severe bone loss and previous revision. Int Orthop 39(4):639–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pekkarinen J, Alho A, Lepistö J, Ylikoski M, Ylinen P, Paavilainen T (2000) Impaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery. A high incidence of complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(1):103–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2004) The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ten Have BLEF, Brouwer RW, van Biezen FC, Verhaar JAN (2012) Femoral revision surgery with impaction bone grafting: 31 hips followed prospectively for ten to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(5):615–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Martinov S, D’ulisse S, Haumont E, Schiopu D, Reynders P, Illés T (2022) Comparative study of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fractures treated by internal fixation versus stem revision. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(12):3589–3597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jain S, Farook MZ, Aslam-Pervez N, Amer M, Martin DH, Unnithan A et al (2023) A multicentre comparative analysis of fixation versus revision surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with a cemented polished taper-slip femoral component. Bone Joint J 105-B(2):124–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stoffel K, Blauth M, Joeris A, Blumenthal A, Rometsch E (2020) Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(10):1381–1394

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Haider T, Hanna P, Mohamadi A, Merchan N, McNichol M, Wixted JJ et al (2021) Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. JBJS Rev 9(8):e21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tyson Y, Rolfson O, Kärrholm J, Hailer NP, Mohaddes M (2019) Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 90(5):421–426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J (2012) Dual-mobility cups for revision due to instability are associated with a low rate of re-revisions due to dislocation: 228 patients from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 83(6):566–571

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mohaddes M, Cnudde P, Rolfson O, Wall A, Kärrholm J (2017) Use of dual-mobility cup in revision hip arthroplasty reduces the risk for further dislocation: analysis of seven hundred and ninety one first-time revisions performed due to dislocation, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Int Orthop 41(3):583–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wu Y, Liu J, Kang L, Tian J, Zhang X, Hu J et al (2023) An overview of 3D printed metal implants in orthopedic applications: present and future perspectives. Heliyon 9(7):e17718

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mondanelli N, Troiano E, Facchini A, Ghezzi R, Di Meglio M, Nuvoli N et al (2022) Treatment algorithm of periprosthetic femoral fracturens. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 10(13):21514593221097610

    Google Scholar 

  40. Maggs JL, Swanton E, Whitehouse SL, Howell JR, Timperley AJ, Hubble MJW et al (2021) B2 or not B2? That is the question: a review of periprosthetic fractures around cemented taper-slip femoral components. Bone Joint J 103-B(1):71–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Division of Orthopaedics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Michael Axenhus, Martin Magnéli & Olof Sköldenberg

  2. Department of Diagnostics and Intervention (Orthopaedics), Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Sebastian Mukka

Authors
  1. Michael Axenhus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Mukka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Magnéli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olof Sköldenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.A. created the figures, tables, and wrote the first draft. O.S. was the primary investigator of the study and operated patients. O.S., S.M., and M.M. all aided in interpreting and analyzing data, drafted the article, and approved the current version of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Axenhus.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Karolinska Institutet (entry number dnr 2013/285-31/2).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests related to the present study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Axenhus, M., Mukka, S., Magnéli, M. et al. Comparative outcomes of uncemented and cemented stem revision in managing periprosthetic femoral fractures: a retrospective cohort study. J Orthop Traumatol 25, 35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00777-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00777-z

Keywords