Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Increase of Cortical Bone After a Cementless Long Stem in Periprosthetic Fractures

  • Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

Healing and functional recovery have been reported using an extensively porous-coated stem in Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures; however, loss of cortical bone has been observed when using these stems in revision surgery for aseptic loosening. However, it is unclear whether this bone loss influences subsequent loosening.

Question/purposes

We analyze the healing fracture rate and whether the radiographic changes observed around and extensively porous-coated stem used for periprosthetic fractures affect function or loosening.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients with periprosthetic fractures (20 Vancouver B2 and 15 Vancouver B3). Patients’ mean age at surgery was 80 years (range, 51–86 years). No cortical struts were used in this series. We evaluated radiographs for signs of loosening or subsidence. The cortical index and the femoral cortical width were measured at different levels on the immediate pre- and postoperative radiographs and at different periods of followup. The minimum followup was 3 years (mean, 8.3 years; range, 3–17 years).

Results

All fractures had healed, and all stems were clinically and radiographically stable at the end of followup. Nineteen hips showed nonprogressive radiographic subsidence during the first 3 postoperative months without clinical consequences. The cortical index and the lateral and medial cortical thickness increased over time. Increase of femoral cortex thicknesses was greater in cases with moderate preoperative osteoporosis and in cases with stems less than 16 mm in thickness.

Conclusions

Our data suggest an extensively porous-coated stem for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures leads to a high rate of union and stable fixation. Cortical index and lateral cortex thickness increased in these patients with periprosthetic fractures. Patients with moderate osteoporosis and those using thin stems showed a major increase in femoral cortex thickness over time.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–C

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bell AL, Brand RA. Roentgenographic changes in the proximal femoral dimensions due to hip rotation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;240:194–199.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Böhm P, Bischel O. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem, evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1023–1031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosco JA, Lachiewicz PF, DeMasi R. Survivorship analysis of cemented high modulus total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;294:131–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Ranawat CS. Results of revision for mechanical failure after cemented total hip replacement. 1979 to 1982. A two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67:1074–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293–304.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Eckrich SGJ, Noble PC, Tullos HS. Effect of rotation on the radiographic appearance of the femoral canal. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:419–426.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement the factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:45–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE. The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:63–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Garcia-Rey E, Cruz-Pardos A, Madero R. Stress-shielding of the proximal femur using an extensively porous-coated femoral component without allograft in revision surgery. A 5- to 17-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1363–1369.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gruen TA. A simple assessment of bone quality prior to hip arthroplasty: cortical index revisited. Acta Orthop Belg. 1997;63(Suppl 1):20–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. ‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;171:17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gutierrez del Alamo J, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Castellanos V, Gil-Garay E. 2007 Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with Wagner SL revision stem. A 5-year to 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 22: 515–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim Y-H, Kim J-S. Revision hip arthroplasty using strut allografts and fully porous-coated stems. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:454–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klein GR, Parvizi J, Rapuri V, Wolf CF, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Purtill JJ. Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1777–1781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ko PS, Lam JJ, Tio MK, Lee OB, Ip FK. Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fracture in geriatric patients. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:446–452.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Koldstad K. Revision THR after periprosthetic femoral fractures. An analysis of 23 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994;65:505–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG. 5- to 13-year follow-up study in cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:839–847.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lawrence JM, Engh CA, Macalino GE, Lauro GR. Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty done without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:965–973.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee G-C, Nelson CL, Virmani S, Manikonda K, Israelite CL, Garino JP. Management of periprosthetic femur fractures with severe bone loss using impaction bone grafting technique. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:405–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Lewis P, Berger RA, Sporer SM, Paprosky WJ. Extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:527–533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H, Herberts P, Malchau H. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1215–1222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG, Jablonsky WS, Magnus RG. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthoplasty. 2001;16:379–383.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McAuley JP, Culpepper WJ, Engh CA. Total hip arthroplasty. Concerns with extensively porous coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:182–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss. Cylindrical and extensively coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:215–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meek RMD, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Duncan CP. Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:480–485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Merle D’Aubigné R. Numerical classification of the function of the hip. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1970;56:481–486.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mertl P, Philippot R, Rosset P, Migaud H, Tabutin J, Van de Velde D. Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures. Int Orthop. 2011;35:275–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141–150.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moreland JR, Moreno MA. Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip. Minimum 5 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:194–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mulay S, Hassan T, Birtwistle S, Power R. Management of types B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures by a tapered, fluted, and distally fixed stem. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:751–756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nadaud MC, Griffin WL, Fehring TK, Mason JB, Tabor OB Jr, Odum S, Nussman DS. Cementless revision total hip arthroplasty without allograft in severe proximal femoral defects. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:738–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Shea K, Quinlan JF, Kutty S, Mulcahy D, Brady OH. The use of uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral components in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1617–1621.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Parvizi J, Rapuri VR, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ. Treatment protocol for proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(Suppl 2):8–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty. The limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsiridis E, Narvani AA, Haddad FS, Timperley JA, Gie GA. Impaction femoral allografting and cemented revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:1124–1132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. West JD, Mayor MB, Collier JP. Potential errors in quantitative densitometric analysis of orthopaedic radiographs. A study after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:58–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Whelan DB, Bhandari M, McKee MD, Guyatt GH, Kreder HJ, Stephen D, Schemitsch EH. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in the assessment of the healing of tibial fractures after intramedullary fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:15–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedics Department, Hospital La Paz-IDi Paz, Pº Castellana 261, 28046, Madrid, Spain

    Eduardo García-Rey MD, PhD, EBOT, Eduardo García-Cimbrelo MD, PhD & Ana Cruz-Pardos MD, PhD

  2. Biostatistics Department, Hospital La Paz-IDi Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Rosário Madero MS

Authors
  1. Eduardo García-Rey MD, PhD, EBOT
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduardo García-Cimbrelo MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Cruz-Pardos MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosário Madero MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo García-Rey MD, PhD, EBOT.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

García-Rey, E., García-Cimbrelo, E., Cruz-Pardos, A. et al. Increase of Cortical Bone After a Cementless Long Stem in Periprosthetic Fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471, 3912–3921 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2845-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2845-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation