The most common classification of periprosthetic femoral fractures is the Vancouver classification. The classification has been validated by multiple centers. Fractures are distinguished by location, stability of the femoral component, and bone quality. Although postoperative and intraoperative fractures are classified using the same three regions, the treatment algorithm is slightly different. Type A fractures involve the greater and lesser trochanter. Fractures around the stem or just distal to the stem are Type B and subcategorised depending on stem stability and bone quality. Type C fractures are well distal to the stem and are treated independent of the stem with standard fixation techniques. The majority of fractures are either B1 (stable stem) or B2 (unstable stem). The stem is retained and ORIF of the fracture performed for B1 fractures. B2 and B3 fractures require stem revision with primary stem fixation distal to the fracture. Intraoperative fractures use the same A, B, C regions but are subtyped 1–3 as cortical perforations, nondisplaced, and displaced unstable fractures, respectively. With the exception of A1 intraoperative fractures all other intraoperative fractures require surgical treatment. A recent publication utilizing a New York state registry highlighted the patient risk of mortality associated with periprosthetic hip fractures. One month, 6 month and 1 year mortality was 3.2%, 3.8% and 9.7%, respectively. The mortality risk was lower for periprosthetic fractures treated with ORIF at 1 and 6 months compared to fractures requiring revision total hip

Introduction. The risk of hip dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty is up to 20% following surgery for periprosthetic fractures. A technique was developed by the senior authors, involving a transtrochanteric osteotomy and superior capsulotomy to attempt to minimise this risk(1). Methods. This prospective study examines a cohort of 40 patients undergoing this novel technique, which involves extending the fracture proximally to the tip of the greater trochanter. This is then extended into the soft tissues in the mid lateral plane as a split of the glutei and a minimally superior capsulotomy (preserving the anterior and posterior capsule). This allows for revision of the femoral component, and retention of the socket and liner. The outcomes of interest to the authors were dislocation rates, clinical outcome measured using the Oxford hip score. These were assessed along with X-ray imaging at 1, 2 and 5-year intervals to confirm fracture union and measure stem subsidence. Results. Patients averaged 80 years of age, with a higher ratio of females (3:2). There were no cases of hip joint dislocations. Two patients (5%) underwent subsequent revision hip arthroplasty within the first 12 months of initial revision. Femoral stem subsidence at 1 year averaged 5.9 mm. All fractures showed radiological evidence of union. The Oxford hip score was fair, averaging 31/48 by 1 year post-op, and then plateaued at 32.8/48 at 2 years post-op. Conclusion. 5 year follow-up of this novel operative technique in revision arthroplasty of Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures has confirmed the benefits, with no cases of hip dislocation, along with overall satisfactory patient clinical outcomes

Periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent functional compromise. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as poor bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The key tenets for fracture avoidance include careful planning, identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, and using appropriate surgical technique. There are a number of recognised risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures The prevalence of intraoperative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia / osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intraoperative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, may also increase the risk of intraoperative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for postoperative femoral fractures following total hip replacement include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex. The management of periprosthetic fractures requires appropriate preoperative imaging, planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intraoperatively and in follow-up. There is a danger that these cases fall between the expertise of the trauma surgeon and that of the revision arthroplasty surgeon. The past two decades have afforded us clear treatment algorithms based on fracture location, component fixation and the available bone stock. We still nevertheless face the enduring challenge of an elderly population with a high level of comorbidity who struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. Perioperative optimization is critical as we have seen prolonged hospital stays, high rates of systemic complications and a significant short term mortality in this cohort. We have also been presented with new difficult fracture patterns around anatomic cementless stems and in relation to tapered cemented and cementless stems, as well as biologically challenging transverse or oblique fractures at the tip of a stem. In many cases, fixation techniques are biomechanically and biologically doomed to fail and intramedullary stability, achieved through complex revision is required. The sequelae of periprosthetic fractures include the financial cost of fixation or revision surgery, the associated morbidity and mortality in an elderly frail population, the difficulty with mobilization if the patient cannot fully weight bear, and a poor functional outcome in a proportion of cases. The battle over which patients or fractures require fixation and which require revision surgery continues

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent function. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures requires careful pre-operative planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intra-operatively and in follow-up. The key issues here are around identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, understanding the possible risks and avoiding them and using appropriate technique. There are a number of recognized risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures. The prevalence of intra-operative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia/osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intra-operative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, as seen in secondary degenerative joint disease following developmental dysplasia of the hip may also increase the risk of intra-operative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intra-operative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for post-operative femoral fractures include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are increasingly recognized. This is in part due to the popularity of press fit components, which increase fracture risk both at the time of insertion and later due to medial wall stress shielding and pelvic osteolysis, and partly due to the increasing frequency of severe defects encountered at the time of revision surgery. Both over- and under-reaming are significant risk factors for acetabular fractures during total hip replacement. It is imperative to deal with the osteopenic patient gently and appropriately, being aware of the rim on the acetabular side and having the capacity for screw fixation where needed, having an understanding of where you wish to place your components and creating the appropriate runways for them, thinking about the stability of an implant as it is inserted and understanding that an implant that is less stable than expected probably is associated with either a size mismatch, a fracture or an implant that will not sit properly probably requires more or a different direction of reaming rather than harder blows with a hammer. A typical example where extra care is required is the scenario of a fractured neck of femur that requires total hip arthroplasty. The virgin native acetabulum in a patient likely to have some bony deficiency may be more difficult to deal with as it has a higher fracture risk. Pre-operative templating helps to identify the correct entry point for preparation of the lateral runway for linear insertion of a femoral stem. If resistance is met during insertion, the situation should be re-appraised to ensure that the direction and level of the rasp and prosthesis are the same. This reduces the risk of varus/valgus positioning which increases the risk of intra- and post-operative fractures. It is also important to avoid a change of version during insertion of the prosthesis as this can lead to high stresses

Introduction

The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims

Hip fracture patients are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and admission into hospital puts them at further risk. We implemented a two-site orthopaedic trauma service, with ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’ hubs, to deliver urgent and infection-controlled trauma care for hip fracture patients, while increasing bed capacity for medical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.