Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp 2787–2795 | Cite as

Reconstructed the bone stock after femoral bone loss in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures using cortical strut allograft and impacted cancellous allograft

  • Donghai Li
  • Qinsheng Hu
  • Pengde Kang
  • Jing Yang
  • Zongke Zhou
  • Bin Shen
  • Fuxing Pei
Original Paper

Abstract

Aims

This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of reconstructing bone stock in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) using an impacted cancellous allograft cortical or combined with cortical strut allograft.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively assessed 39 Vancouver-type B3 periprosthetic fractures in 39 patients. Having different bone defects in the femur, 20 patients were treated with intramedullary impacted cancellous allograft, and 19 patients were treated with impacted cancellous allograft combined with cortical strut allograft. The median follow-up time was 58 months.

Results

Thirty-three patients completed the follow-up as scheduled, and three of them underwent re-operation (9.1%, 3/33). The last evaluated mean hip Harris score was 81.8; WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function scores were 82.3, 79.0, and 81.3, respectively. The satisfaction score was 86.6, and the SF-12 mental and physical scores were 40.4 and 51.1, respectively, for all patients. These outcomes were without significant difference between the two treatment groups (p > 0.05). The facture union was achieved in all the hips (100%). The stem was fixed with bone ingrowth in 24 patients and with fibrous fixation in eight, while stem fixation was not achieved for the remaining patient. The stem subsided less than 3 mm in 23 patients and 3–5 mm in nine patients. One patient had > 5 mm subsidence. The femoral bone stock was improved in 18 patients and remained unchanged in 14 patients; only one patient suffered a diminished bone stock. The radiographic assessment outcomes exhibited little difference between the two treatment groups (p > 0.05). Osseous union of the cortical strut to the host femur occurred in six patients with partial union and ten with complete union. There was moderate and mild graft resorption in three and 13 hips, respectively.

Conclusions

The use of impacted cancellous allograft and cortical strut allograft to reconstruct bone stock can provide reliable options and satisfactory results.

Keywords

Periprosthetic femoral fractures Total hip arthroplasty Bone loss Revision 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by  the Project of International Cooperation of Sichuan Province of China (2016HH0071).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical review committee statement

The study was approved by the Clinical Trials and Biomedical Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, and written informed consents were obtained from all participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2014) Tapered fluted titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:590–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gillam MH, Ryan P, Graves SE, et al (2010) Competing risks survival analysis applied to data from the Australian Orthopaedic AssociationNational Joint Replacement Registry. Acta Orthop 81:548–555Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry DJ (1999) Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 30:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P et al (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplast 20:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook RE, Jenkins PJ, Walmsley PJ, Patton JT, Robinson CM (2008) Risk factors for periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1652–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu CC, Au MK, Wu SS, Lin LC (1999) Risk factors for postoperative femoral fracture in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Formos Med Assoc 98:190–194Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh JA, Jensen MR, Lewallen DG (2012) Patient factors predict periprosthetic fractures after revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 27:1507–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG (2003) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:2156–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lim CT, Amanatullah DF, Huddleston JI 3rd, Hwang KL, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB (2017) Cortical strut allograft support of modular femoral junctions during revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32:1586–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ten Have BL, Brouwer RW, van Biezen FC, Verhaar JA (2012) Femoral revision surgery with impaction bone grafting: 31 hips followed prospectively for ten to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94:615–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG (2013) Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:601–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu HB, Yan SG, Wu LD, He RX, Wang XH, Dai XS (2009) Combined use of extensively porous coated femoral components with onlay cortical strut allografts in revision of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Chin Med J 122:2612–2615Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barden B, von Knoch M, Fitzek JG, Löer F (2003) Periprosthetic fractures with extensive bone loss treated with onlay strut allografts. Int Orthop 27:164–167Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pavlou G, Panteliadis P, Macdonald D, Timperley JA, Gie G, Bancroft G, Tsiridis E (2011) A review of 202 periprosthetic fractures—stem revision and allograft improves outcome for type B fractures. Hip Int 21:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Rastogi D (2015) High survivorship with cementless stems and cortical strut allografts for large femoral bone defects in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2990–3000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mokka J, Keemu H, Koivisto M, Stormi T, Vahlberg T, Virolainen P, Junnila M, Seppänen M, Mäkelä KT (2013) Experience of structural onlay allografts for the treatment of bone deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. Scand J Surg 102:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Safir O, Kellett CF, Flint M et al (2009) Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barden B, Fitzek JG, Huttegger C et al (2001) Supportive strut grafts for diaphyseal bone defects in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 387:148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN (2011) The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2011:591253Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maury AC, Pressman A, Cayen B, Zalzal P, Backstein D, Gross A (2006) Proximal femoral allograft treatment of Vancouver type-B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Engh Jr CA, McAuley JP, Engh Sr C (1999) Surgical approaches for revision total hip replacement surgery: the anterior trochanteric slide and the extended conventional osteotomy. Instr Course Lect 48:3Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N et al (2007) Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1036–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Al-Taki MM, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS (2011) Quality of life following proximal femoral replacement using a modular system in revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gross AE, Allen G, Lavoie G (1993) Revision arthroplasty using allograft bone. Instr Course Lect 42:363–380Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haddad FS, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Hutchison CR, Gross AE (2000) Femoral bone loss in patients managed with revision hip replacement: results of circumferential allograft replacement. Instr Course Lect 49:147–162Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haddad FS, Spangehl MJ, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP (2000) Circumferential allograft replacement of the proximal femur. A critical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 371:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amenabar T, Rahman WA, Avhad VV, Vera R, Gross AE, Kuzyk PR (2015) Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39:1927–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donghai Li
    • 1
  • Qinsheng Hu
    • 1
  • Pengde Kang
    • 1
  • Jing Yang
    • 1
  • Zongke Zhou
    • 1
  • Bin Shen
    • 1
  • Fuxing Pei
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, West China HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations