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

The use of plate-and-cable constructs to treat periprosthetic fractures around a well-fixed femoral component in total hip replacements has been reported to have high rates of failure. Our aim was to evaluate the results of a surgical treatment algorithm to use these lateral constructs reliably in Vancouver type-B1 and type-C fractures. The joint was dislocated and the stability of the femoral component was meticulously evaluated in 45 type-B1 fractures. This led to the identification of nine (20%) unstable components. The fracture was considered to be suitable for single plate-and-cable fixation by a direct reduction technique if the integrity of the medial cortex could be restored. Union was achieved in 29 of 30 fractures (97%) at a mean of 6.4 months (3 to 30) in 29 type-B1 and five type-C fractures. Three patients developed an infection and one construct failed. Using this algorithm plate-and-cable constructs can be used safely, but indirect reduction with minimal soft-tissue damage could lead to shorter times to union and lower rates of complications

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 femoral fracture (PPF) is a major complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Uncemented femoral components are widely preferred in primary THA, but are associated with higher PPF risk than cemented components. Collared components have reduced PPF rates following uncemented primary THA compared to collarless components, while maintaining similar prosthetic designs. The purpose of this study was to analyze PPF rate between collarless and collared component designs in a consecutive cohort of posterior approach THAs performed by two high-volume surgeons.

The Unified Classification System (UCS) was introduced because of a growing need to have a standardised universal classification system of periprosthetic fractures. It combines and simplifies many existing classification systems, and can be applied to any fracture around any partial or total joint replacement occurring during or after operation. Our goal was to assess the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the UCS in association with knee replacement when classifying fractures affecting one or more of the femur, tibia or patella. We used an international panel of ten orthopaedic surgeons with subspecialty fellowship training and expertise in adult hip and knee reconstruction (‘experts’) and ten residents of orthopaedic surgery in the last two years of training (‘pre-experts’). They each received 15 radiographs for evaluation. After six weeks they evaluated the same radiographs again but in a different order. . The reliability was assessed using the Kappa and weighted Kappa values. The Kappa values for inter-observer reliability for the experts and the pre-experts were 0.741 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.707 to 0.774) and 0.765 (95% CI 0.733 to 0.797), respectively. The weighted Kappa values for intra-observer reliability for the experts and pre-experts were 0.898 (95% CI 0.846 to 0.950) and 0.878 (95% CI 0.815 to 0.942) respectively. The UCS has substantial inter-observer reliability and ‘near perfect’ intra-observer reliability when used for periprosthetic fractures in association with knee replacement in the hands of experienced and inexperienced users. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1669–73

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the optimal sagittal positioning of the uncemented femoral component in total knee arthroplasty to minimize the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture. Methods. Ten different sagittal placements of the femoral component, ranging from -5 mm (causing anterior notch) to +4 mm (causing anterior gap), were analyzed using finite element analysis. Both gait and squat loading conditions were simulated, and Von Mises stress and interface micromotion were evaluated to assess fracture and loosening risk. Results. During gait, varied sagittal positioning did not lead to excessive Von Mises stress or micromotion. However, under squat conditions, posterior positioning (-4 and -5 mm) resulted in stress exceeding 150 MPa at the femoral notch, indicating potential fracture risk. Conversely, +1 mm and 0 mm sagittal positions demonstrated minimal interface micromotion. Conclusion. Slightly anterior sagittal positioning (+1 mm) or neutral positioning (0 mm) effectively reduced stress concentration at the femoral notch and minimized interface micromotion. Thus, these positions are deemed suitable to decrease the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic femoral fracture

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

Aims. Osseointegrated prosthetic limbs allow better mobility than socket-mounted prosthetics for lower limb amputees. Fractures, however, can occur in the residual limb, but they have rarely been reported. Approximately 2% to 3% of amputees with socket-mounted prostheses may fracture within five years. This is the first study which directly addresses the risks and management of periprosthetic osseointegration fractures in amputees. Methods. A retrospective review identified 518 osseointegration procedures which were undertaken in 458 patients between 2010 and 2018 for whom complete medical records were available. Potential risk factors including time since amputation, age at osseointegration, bone density, weight, uni/bilateral implantation and sex were evaluated with multiple logistic regression. The mechanism of injury, technique and implant that was used for fixation of the fracture, pre-osseointegration and post fracture mobility (assessed using the K-level) and the time that the prosthesis was worn for in hours/day were also assessed. Results. There were 22 periprosthetic fractures; they occurred exclusively in the femur: two in the femoral neck, 14 intertrochanteric and six subtrochanteric, representing 4.2% of 518 osseointegration operations and 6.3% of 347 femoral implants. The vast majority (19/22, 86.4%) occurred within 2 cm of the proximal tip of the implant and after a fall. No fractures occurred spontaneously. Fixation most commonly involved dynamic hip screws (10) and reconstruction plates (9). No osseointegration implants required removal, the K-level was not reduced after fixation of the fracture in any patient, and all retained a K-level of ≥ 2. All fractures united, 21 out of 22 patients (95.5%) wear their osseointegration-mounted prosthetic limb longer daily than when using a socket, with 18 out of 22 (81.8%) reporting using it for ≥ 16 hours daily. Regression analysis identified a 3.89-fold increased risk of fracture for females (p = 0.007) and a 1.02-fold increased risk of fracture per kg above a mean of 80.4 kg (p = 0.046). No increased risk was identified for bilateral implants (p = 0.083), time from amputation to osseointegration (p = 0.974), age at osseointegration (p = 0.331), or bone density (g/cm2, p = 0.560; T-score, p = 0.247; Z-score, p = 0.312). Conclusion. The risks and sequelae of periprosthetic fracture after press-fit osseointegration for amputation should not deter patients or clinicians from considering this procedure. Females and heavier patients are likely to have an increased risk of fracture. Age, years since amputation, and bone density do not appear influential. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):162–169

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. To evaluate the hypothesis that failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures can be treated successfully with stem revision using a transfemoral approach and a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem with reproducible rates of fracture healing, stability of the revision stem, and clinically good results. Patients and Methods. A total of 14 patients (11 women, three men) with a mean age of 72.4 years (65 to 90) undergoing revision hip arthroplasty after failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B1 were treated using a transfemoral approach to remove the well-fixed stem before insertion of a modular, fluted titanium stem which obtained distal fixation. These patients were clinically and radiologically followed up for a mean 52.2 months (24 to 144). Results. After a mean of 15.5 weeks (standard deviation (. sd. ) 5.7) all fractures had healed. No stems subsided and bony-ingrowth fixation had occurred according to the classification of Engh et al. The mean Harris Hip Score increased from a pre-operative score of 22.2 points (. sd. 9.7) to 81.5 points (. sd. 16.8) 24 months post-operatively. All hips had obtained an excellent result according to the classification of Beals and Tower. Conclusions. The technique described here for stem revision provides reproducibly good results in the treatment of failed osteosynthesis for Vancouver types B1 periprosthetic fractures of the hip. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):11–16

Aims

Despite higher rates of revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA) being reported for uncemented stems in patients aged > 75 years, they are frequently used in this age group. Increased mortality after cemented fixation is often used as a justification, but recent data do not confirm this association. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the design of the stem and the type of fixation on the rate of revision and immediate postoperative mortality, focusing on the age and sex of the patients.

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures by performing a systematic review of the methods of surgical treatment which have been reported. Materials and Methods. A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For inclusion, studies required a minimum of ten patients with a Vancouver type B2 and/or ten patients with a Vancouver type B3 fracture, a minimum mean follow-up of two years and outcomes which were matched to the type of fracture. Studies were also required to report the rate of re-operation as an outcome measure. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database. . Results. A total of 22 studies were included based on the eligibility criteria, including 343 B2 fractures and 167 B3 fractures. The mean follow-up ranged from 32 months to 74 months. . Of 343 Vancouver B2 fractures, the treatment in 298 (86.8%) involved revision arthroplasty and 45 (12.6%) were treated with internal fixation alone. A total of 37 patients (12.4%) treated with revision arthroplasty and six (13.3%) treated by internal fixation only underwent further re-operation. . Of 167 Vancouver B3 fractures, the treatment in 160 (95.8%) involved revision arthroplasty and eight (4.8%) were treated with internal fixation without revision. A total of 23 patients (14.4%) treated with revision arthroplasty and two (28.6%) treated only with internal fixation required re-operation. Conclusion. A significant proportion, particularly of B2 fractures, were treated without revision of the stem. These were associated with a higher rate of re-operation. The treatment of B3 fractures without revision of the stem resulted in a high rate of re-operation. This demonstrates the importance of careful evaluation and accurate characterisation of the fracture at the time of presentation to ensure the correct management. There is a need for improvement in the reporting of data in case series recording the outcome of the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures. We have suggested a minimum dataset to improve the quality of data in studies dealing with these fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(4 Supple B):17–25

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.

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 purpose of this study was to compare reoperation and revision rates of double plating (DP), single plating using a lateral locking plate (SP), or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs).

Aims

The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks.

Aims

Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA).