Abstract
Purpose
Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) around the hip are challenging complications in orthopaedic surgery, particularly Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. The surgical management of these fractures is crucial and depends on various factors. Cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis is an alternative surgical technique. This study aims to compare the outcomes of this surgical technique with revision arthroplasty (RA) with long stem in the treatment of VTB2 PPFs.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted in a single medical institute from February 2010 to May 2019. Patients who had received either total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty and subsequently developed a VTB2 PPF were included; patients who sustained intra-operative fractures or received a cemented stem previously were excluded from the analysis. The patients were divided into two groups: group I received RA with cementless long stem, while group II underwent RA with cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis. Demographic data, radiographic and functional outcomes, and complications were analyzed between the two groups.
Results
A total of 85 patients diagnosed with VTB2 PPFs were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic data, including age, gender, mean follow-up times, estimated blood loss, and operative times. The radiographic results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsidence and implant stability between the two groups. However, group II tended to have less subsidence and periprosthetic osteolysis. Patients in group II had significantly better functional scores (mean Harris hip score: post-operative: 60.2 in group I and 66.7 in group ii; last follow-up: 77.4 in group 1 and 83.2 in group II (both p < 0.05)). There were no significant differences in the overall complication rate, including infection, dislocation, re-fracture, and revision surgery, between the two groups.
Conclusions
Both surgical techniques, cementless long stem and cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis, are effective in the treatment of Vancouver B2 PPFs, with no significant differences in outcomes or complications. However, patients in cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis had better functional scores at both post-operative and the last follow-up.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) are a serious complication that can arise after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or bipolar hemiarthroplasty procedures [4, 18]. These fractures occur around the prosthetic components in the hip joint and can lead to pain, instability, and loss of function [25]. As hip replacement surgeries become more prevalent, especially among the aging population, the incidence of periprosthetic fractures is expected to rise [8, 29].
The Vancouver classification system is widely employed for categorizing periprosthetic hip fractures, aiding in treatment decision-making based on the fracture's location and characteristics [7, 19, 22]. According to the Vancouver algorithm, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) utilizing a locking compression plate (LCP) represent a well-accepted and established treatment modality for Vancouver type B1 (VTB1) fractures [15, 20]. In cases involving a loose stem and compromised bone quality, such as VTB3 fractures, revision arthroplasty (RA) employing a long stem to bypass the fracture and augmentation remains the recommended surgical approach [14, 17].
However, Vancouver type B2 PPFs, which involve a fracture around or just below the stem with a loose stem but good proximal bone, present the most contentious classification in current treatment approaches. This is because VTB1 fractures typically undergo direct ORIF, while VTB3 fractures receive direct revision. In contrast, VTB2 falls in between, making it eligible for both ORIF and revision. The academic community has seen numerous studies discussing the differences between ORIF and revision when applied to VTB2 patients [2, 10, 28]. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in the outcomes of both approaches.
Considering the complexity of the injury and the potential for significant bone loss, we have opted for a different combination of surgical techniques, including revision arthroplasty and internal fixation.
This retrospective study compares the outcomes of two surgical treatments for Vancouver type B2 PPFs: revision arthroplasty with cementless long stem (group I) and cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis (group II). The aim of this study is to determine which of the two surgical techniques provides better outcomes for patients with Vancouver type B2 PPFs. We hypothesize that there will be no significant differences in outcomes or complications between the two groups. However, we expect that patients in group II will have better functional scores at both post-operative and the last follow-up. This study has the potential to inform surgical decision-making and improve patient outcomes for Vancouver type B2 PPFs.
Materials and methods
Methods
This retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary medical institute and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital (2024–03-005BC). This study examined patient records from February 2010 to May 2019, aiming to investigate the outcomes of patients who had undergone total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty and subsequently experienced a secondary Vancouver type B2 PPFs.
Inclusion criteria for the study were patients who older than 50 years old had received either total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty and subsequently developed a Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic fracture. Exclusion criteria included malignant metastasis with hip arthroplasty, previous hip surgery with cemented stem, intraoperative periprosthetic fractures, patients who could not cooperate with follow-up, and follow-up less than two years. The reason for exclusion of patients with cemented stem was due to the relatively small number of patients with this type of stem at the institute.
During the study period, 192 patients were diagnosed with periprosthetic fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Among these patients, 159 had been treated with a cementless stem, and 96 were confirmed to have Vancouver type B2 PPFs. The study ultimately included 85 patients diagnosed with Vancouver B PPFs, as five patients passed away and six patients were followed up for less than two years, which disqualified them from the analysis. There was no missing data among these 85 patients (Fig. 1).
Patient grouping
The study participants were divided into two groups based on the surgical approach chosen by two experienced orthopaedic surgeons specializing in hip arthroplasty and trauma. Forty-four patients were divided into group I which underwent RA using a cementless long stem (U2 revision stem, United®), while 41 patients were divided into group II which received RA with a cementless short taper stem (Zimmer® M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis) and rigid fixation with plate osteosynthesis (DePuy Synthes, Variable Angle Condylar LCP). Both groups underwent open reduction with cerclage wiring to reduce fractures and remove the previous stem.
Surgical technique
Group I (Long Stem only) (Fig. 2 )
In the surgical approach of group 1, we initiate the procedure by creating a straight lateral thigh incision through the posterolateral approach, involving the incision of the tensor fascia lata and the separation of the gluteus maximus to gain access to the hip joint. Following this, the femoral head is dislocated, and the vastus lateralis muscle is elevated and retracted to expose the fracture site. Subsequently, the loosening stem is removed, and cerclage wiring is employed for fracture reduction, ensuring the placement of at least two sets of wires above and below the lesser trochanter. The femoral canal is then meticulously prepared using a flexible reamer, tailored to the appropriate size based on the canal dimensions. A trial of the long stem is conducted through broaching, and the fit is carefully assessed using intraoperative fluoroscopy. Finally, the hip joint is reduced, and a comprehensive evaluation is performed to gauge its stability and assess the tension of the surrounding soft tissues.
Group II (short taper stem + ORIF with LCP) (Fig. 3 )
In the surgical approach of group 2, a straight lateral thigh incision is made through the posterolateral approach, involving the incision of the tensor fascia lata and the separation of the gluteus maximus to gain access to the hip joint. Subsequently, the femoral head is dislocated, and the vastus lateralis muscle is elevated and retracted to expose the fracture site. The loosening stem is then removed, and cerclage wiring is utilized for fracture reduction, ensuring the placement of at least two sets of wires above and below the lesser trochanter. To achieve a press fit, the stem is revised to a larger size using a short taper stem trial, such as the Zimmer M-L taper stem. Additionally, a contra-lateral distal femur VA condylar LCP is positioned laterally to the greater trochanter tip along the femur shaft and secured with four locking screws. Finally, the hip joint is reduced, and a comprehensive assessment is conducted to evaluate its stability and the tension of the surrounding soft tissues.
Post-operative protocol
Group I patients were required to ambulate with protective weight bearing and crutches for six weeks, followed by partial weight bearing for another six weeks before being allowed full weight bearing. Group II patients were allowed immediate full weight bearing.
Outcome measures
The outcome measures for this study included the radiographic and clinical outcomes of the patients. Radiographic outcomes were assessed at last follow-up, including assessments of stem migration, periprosthetic osteolysis, and implant stability. Clinical outcomes were assessed post-operatively and at last follow-up, using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Harris hip scores (HHSs). VAS scores were assessed to measure pain levels on a scale from 0 to 10. HHSs were used with scores ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better functional outcomes and lower scores indicate poorer functional outcomes [31].
Statistical analysis descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic data of the patients. The clinical and radiographic outcomes of the two groups were compared using independent sample t tests and chi-square tests. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Demographic data and clinical characteristics
Table 1 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients in group I (revision with long stem) and group II (revision with short taper stem + ORIF). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, injury mechanism, follow-up time, fracture classification, operative time, intra-operative blood loss, transfusion units, hospital stay, and return to walk.
Radiological outcomes
Radiographic evaluation was performed to compare the subsidence, radiolucent line in Gruen zone (analyzed in AP view), periprosthetic osteolysis, and implant stability between the two groups. Table 2 shows the radiographic outcomes of the patients in group I and group II. The results showed that the mean subsidence in group I was 2.1 ± 0.8 mm, while it was 1.9 ± 0.6 mm in group II. Although there was no significant difference between the two groups, group II tended to have less subsidence. Regarding the radiolucent line in Gruen zone, group I had six cases, while group II had three cases, but the difference was not significant. The incidence of periprosthetic osteolysis was 8 cases in group I and four cases in group II, which showed a trend that group II had fewer cases, but the difference was not significant. The implant stability was 42 cases in group I and 39 cases in group II, and there was no significant difference between the two groups.
Clinical outcomes
Clinical outcomes of the patients in group I and group II are shown in Table 2. There were no significant differences in the visual analog scale (VAS) scores at the last follow-up between the two groups. However, patients in group II had better functional outcomes at both post-operative and the last follow-up. The mean Harris hip score (HHS) was 60.2 ± 7.5 in group I and 66.7 ± 9.3 in group II at post-operative (p = 0.001); 77.4 ± 8.3 in group 1 and 83.2 ± 6.5 in group II at the last follow-up (p < 0.001).
Complications
Table 2 shows the complications of the patients in group I and group II. There were no significant differences in the overall complication rate, including infection, dislocation, re-fracture, and revision surgery, between the two groups.
Discussion
In summary, the study included a total of 85 patients diagnosed with VTB2 PPFs, each with a minimum follow-up period of two years. Radiographic analysis revealed the trend of less subsidence and periprosthetic osteolysis in group II, which might suggest that cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis might provide better initial stability and implant-bone interface than cementless long stem. Patients in group II exhibited significantly better functional scores (HHSs) compared to group I at both post-operative and the last follow-up, which may be attributed to the additional stability provided by plate osteosynthesis, allowing for more rapid rehabilitation and weight-bearing post-operatively.
The treatment of Vancouver type B2 PPFs is a challenging task for orthopaedic surgeons. The surgical management of these fractures depends on many factors, such as the patient’s age, medical condition, fracture classification, and the experience of the surgeon. The current mainstream approaches can be divided into two categories: the first is ORIF, which involves reinforcing fixation around the PPFs using steel plates. The advantages of ORIF include being a less invasive surgical procedure with reduced surgery time and blood loss, along with lower implant costs. Additionally, it allows for the possibility of future stem revision [21, 27]. However, concerns about the stability of fixation may arise with ORIF, especially when considering that the stem and bone interface is already compromised. ORIF does not directly address this issue. Moreover, radiographic outcomes following ORIF have been suboptimal based on Beals and Tower’s criteria [27] and associated with higher rate of subsidence [10]. The second approach is revision arthroplasty, where a new artificial joint is created. The alternative artificial joint typically incorporates a long stem for stability [2, 10, 14, 28]. This method which bypasses the fracture offers the advantage of directly addressing the instability between the stem and bone while securing the fracture site, remains the recommended surgical procedure for the challenging Vancouver type B2 PPFs [1, 6, 24, 30]. However, it has the drawback of causing more significant damage to the femoral bone stock, making future RA procedures more challenging [11, 13]. ORIF was performed for certain type injuries in patients who were not medically fit for RA, particularly when dealing with elderly patients with multiple comorbidities, while RA was chosen for other cases [5, 9, 12, 26, 33]. Previous meta-analysis including 1621 patients demonstrates that RA has a similar revision and complication rate to ORIF in Vancouver B2 PFFs [16].
In our study, we employed an alternative surgical approach beyond the two previously mentioned methods: the combination of RA along with ORIF. Specifically, we utilized a cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of Vancouver type B2 PPFs. This approach is aimed at harnessing the advantages of both the preceding methods: preserving more bone stock through the use of a short stem while enhancing the fixation effect achieved by ORIF. It is noteworthy that such a surgical technique is currently not documented in existing literature. In this study, we compared the outcomes of RA with cementless long stem (group I) and cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis (group II) in the treatment of Vancouver type B2 PPFs. Our results showed that both surgical techniques are effective, with no significant differences in outcomes or complications between the two groups.
In terms of radiological outcomes, current literature suggests that the utilization of ORIF may yield results on par with those achieved through stem revision [23, 28]. When addressing VTB2 PPF, Solomon et al. demonstrated complete fracture healing and stable stem conditions in the ORIF group based on radiographic assessments, with no radiological complications documented in the revision cohort [26]. In a review study conducted by Haider et al., a lower rate of subsidence was observed in the RA group compared to ORIF for VTB2 PPF, with no significant difference was noted in terms of loosening [10]. Our results further indicating that group II tended to have less subsidence and periprosthetic osteolysis, which suggests that cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis might provide better initial stability and implant-bone interface than cementless long stem.
Regarding functional outcomes, Haider et al. demonstrated no significant differences in clinical outcome and the percentage of patients achieving full weight-bearing when comparing RA and ORIF for the treatment of Vancouver type-B2 fractures [10]. In our study, the better functional outcomes observed in group II at both post-operative and the last follow-up may be attributed to the additional stability provided by plate osteosynthesis, which could allow for more rapid rehabilitation and weight-bearing post-operatively. Furthermore, the implementation of a short taper stem could lead to reduced disruption of the femoral bone stock while simultaneously decreasing thigh pain and proximal stress shielding [3, 32]. These factors may potentially contribute to enhance both short-term and long-term functional outcomes.
Currently, the surgical management of challenging VTB2 periprosthetic fractures primarily involves RA with a long stem, while ORIF may be considered for patients with multiple comorbidities. Our proposed alternative technique has shown outcomes slightly superior to those of revision with a long stem. Although we did not specifically compare the outcomes of short stem + ORIF with those of sole ORIF, existing literature indicates that the efficacy of revision with a long stem and ORIF is comparable [2, 10, 16, 28]. In summary, we hypothesize that the effectiveness of short stem + ORIF is not inferior to that of sole ORIF or sole revision with a long stem. This could be considered as one of the options for future patient care.
Limitation
There are several limitations to our study. Firstly, the retrospective design of the study and the relatively small sample size might have resulted in selection bias and insufficient statistical power to detect significant differences between the two groups. Secondly, the follow-up period of at least 2 years might not be long enough to capture potential differences in the long-term survivorship of the implants. Finally, there might be unmeasured confounding variables that could have influenced the outcomes and complications.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study compared the outcomes of revision arthroplasty with cementless long stem and cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of Vancouver type B2 PPFs. Both surgical techniques are effective, with no significant differences in outcomes or complications between the two groups. However, patients underwent cementless short taper stem with plate osteosynthesis, had better functional outcomes at both post-operative and the last follow-up. These findings might help inform surgical decision-making and improve patient outcomes for Vancouver type B2 PPFs. Further research including prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed.
References
Abdel MP, Cottino U, Mabry TM (2015) Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 39(10):2005–2010
Baum C, Leimbacher M, Kriechling P, Platz A, Cadosch D (2019) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures Vancouver type B2: revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plate. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 10:2151459319876859
Blakeney WG, Lavigne M, Beaulieu Y, Puliero B, Vendittoli PA (2021) Mid-term results of total hip arthroplasty using a novel uncemented short femoral stem with metaphyso-diaphyseal fixation. Hip Int 31(1):83–89
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):128–133
Chatziagorou G, Lindahl H, Kärrholm J (2019) Surgical treatment of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint Journal 101-B(11):1447–1458
Dargan D, Jenkinson MJ, Acton JD (2014) A retrospective review of the Dall-Miles plate for periprosthetic femoral fractures: twenty-seven cases and a review of the literature. Injury 45(12):1958–1963
Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304
Frenzel S, Vécsei V, Negrin L (2015) Periprosthetic femoral fractures–incidence, classification problems and the proposal of a modified classification scheme. Int Orthop 39(10):1909–1920
González-Martín D, Pais-Brito JL, González-Casamayor S, Guerra-Ferraz A, Ojeda-Jiménez J, Herrera-Pérez M (2022) Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 7(8):533–541
Haider T, Hanna P, Mohamadi A et al (2021) Revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation of Vancouver type-B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures. JBJS Rev 9(8). https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.21.00008
Innocenti M, Smulders K, Andreotti M, Willems JH, Van Hellemondt G, Nijhof MW (2023) The use of a standard-length conical tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty to address Paprosky type I-II femoral defects: a prospective study of 87 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143(9):5945–5955
Joestl J, Hofbauer M, Lang N, Tiefenboeck T, Hajdu S (2016) Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Injury 47(4):939–943
Khuangsirikul S, Chotanaphuti T (2020) Management of femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 11(1):29–32
Kinov P, Volpin G, Sevi R, Tanchev PP, Antonov B, Hakim G (2015) Surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty: our institutional experience. Injury 46(10):1945–1950
Lenz M, Stoffel K, Kielstein H, Mayo K, Hofmann GO, Gueorguiev B (2016) Plate fixation in periprosthetic femur fractures Vancouver type B1-Trochanteric hook plate or subtrochanterical bicortical locking? Injury 47(12):2800–2804
Lewis DP, Tarrant SM, Cornford L, Balogh ZJ (2022) Management of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, revision total hip arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 36(1):7–16
Li D, Hu Q, Kang P et al (2018) Reconstructed the bone stock after femoral bone loss in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures using cortical strut allograft and impacted cancellous allograft. Int Orthop 42(12):2787–2795
Lindahl H (2007) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 38(6):651–654
Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 20(7):857–865
Lochab J, Carrothers A, Wong E et al (2017) Do transcortical screws in a locking plate construct improve the stiffness in the fixation of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures? A biomechanical analysis of 2 different plating constructs. J Orthop Trauma 31(1):15–20
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
Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:80–95
Park JS, Hong S, Nho JH, Kang D, Choi HS, Suh YS (2019) Radiologic outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation for cementless stems in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 53(1):24–29
Patsiogiannis N, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV (2021) Periprosthetic hip fractures: an update into their management and clinical outcomes. EFORT Open Rev 6(1):75–92
Ricci WM (2015) Periprosthetic femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 29(3):130–137
Solomon LB, Hussenbocus SM, Carbone TA, Callary SA, Howie DW (2015) Is internal fixation alone advantageous in selected B2 periprosthetic fractures? ANZ J Surg 85(3):169–173
Spina M, Scalvi A (2018) Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a comparative study of stem revision versus internal fixation with plate. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28(6):1133–1142
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
Thien TM, Chatziagorou G, Garellick G et al (2014) Periprosthetic femoral fracture within two years after total hip replacement: analysis of 437,629 operations in the nordic arthroplasty register association database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(19):e167
Thomsen PB, Jensen NJ, Kampmann J, Bæk Hansen T (2013) Revision hip arthroplasty with an extensively porous-coated stem - excellent long-term results also in severe femoral bone stock loss. Hip Int 23(4):352–358
Ulusoy İ, Yılmaz M, Kıvrak A (2023) Efficacy of autologous stem cell therapy in femoral head avascular necrosis: a comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 18(1):799
van Oldenrijk J, Molleman J, Klaver M, Poolman RW, Haverkamp D (2014) Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies. Acta Orthop 85(3):250–258
Zheng H, Gu H, Shao H et al (2020) Treatment and outcomes of Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 102-B(3):293–300
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, JJ., Hung, SH., Liou, JY. et al. Long stem revision versus short stem revision with plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture: a comparative study of eighty five cases. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 48, 1997–2005 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06181-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06181-w