Aims. This aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System (UCS) for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) stems. Methods. Radiographs of 71 patients with a PFF admitted consecutively at two centres between 25 February 2012 and 19 May 2020 were collated by an independent investigator. Six observers (three hip consultants and three trainees) were familiarized with the UCS. Each PFF was classified on two separate occasions, with a mean time between assessments of 22.7 days (16 to 29). Interobserver reliability for more than two observers was assessed using percentage agreement and Fleiss’ kappa statistic. Intraobserver reliability between two observers was calculated with Cohen kappa statistic. Validity was tested on surgically managed UCS type B PFFs where stem stability was documented in operation notes (n = 50). Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa statistic between radiological assessment and intraoperative findings. Kappa statistics were interpreted using Landis and Koch criteria. All six observers were blinded to operation notes and postoperative radiographs. Results. Interobserver reliability percentage agreement was 58.5% and the overall kappa value was 0.442 (moderate agreement). Lowest kappa values were seen for type B fractures (0.095 to 0.360). The mean intraobserver reliability kappa value was 0.672 (0.447 to 0.867), indicating substantial agreement. Validity percentage agreement was 65.7% and the mean kappa value was 0.300 (0.160 to 0.4400) indicating only fair agreement. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the UCS is unsatisfactory for the classification of PFFs around PTS stems, and that it has considerably lower reliability and validity than previously described for other stem types. Radiological PTS stem loosening in the presence of PFF is poorly defined and formal intraoperative testing of stem stability is recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1339–1344

Periprosthetic fractures are an increasingly common complication following joint replacement. The principles which underpin their evaluation and treatment are common across the musculoskeletal system. The Unified Classification System proposes a rational approach to treatment, regardless of the bone that is broken or the joint involved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:713–16

The Unified Classification System (UCS) emphasises the key principles in the assessment and management of peri-prosthetic fractures complicating partial or total joint replacement. We tested the inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS as applied to the pelvis and femur using 20 examples of peri-prosthetic fracture in 17 patients. Each subtype of the UCS was represented by at least one case. Specialist orthopaedic surgeons (experts) and orthopaedic residents (pre-experts) assessed reliability on two separate occasions. For the pelvis, the UCS showed inter-observer agreement of 0.837 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.798 to 0.876) for the experts and 0.728 (95% CI 0.689 to 0.767) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement for the experts was 0.861 (95% CI 0.760 to 0.963) and 0.803 (95% 0.688 to 0.918) for the pre-experts. For the femur, the UCS showed an inter-observer kappa value of 0.805 (95% CI 0.765 to 0.845) for the experts and a value of 0.732 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.773) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement was 0.920 (95% CI 0.867 to 0.973) for the experts, and 0.772 (95% CI 0.652 to 0.892) for the pre-experts. This corresponds to a substantial and ‘almost perfect’ inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur. We hope that unifying the terminology of these injuries will assist in their assessment, treatment and outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1472–7

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine both the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for, postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with either a collared cementless (CC) femoral component or a cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) femoral component.

Aims

Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are a major complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Health status after PFF is not specifically investigated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the health status pattern over two years after sustaining a PFF.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Aims

We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty.

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented taper-slip femoral prostheses often result in a femoral component that is loose at the prosthesis-cement interface, but where the cement-bone interface remains well-fixed and bone stock is good. We aim to understand how best to classify and manage these fractures by using a modification of the Vancouver classification.

We are currently facing an epidemic of periprosthetic fractures around the hip. They may occur either during surgery or post-operatively. Although the acetabulum may be involved, the femur is most commonly affected. We are being presented with new, difficult fracture patterns around cemented and cementless implants, and we face the challenge of an elderly population who may have grossly deficient bone and may struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. The correct surgical management of these fractures is challenging. This article will review the current choices of implants and techniques available to deal with periprosthetic fractures of the femur.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):48–55.