Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 12, pp 3912–3921 | Cite as

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

  • Eduardo García-Rey
  • Eduardo García-Cimbrelo
  • Ana Cruz-Pardos
  • Rosário Madero
Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings



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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


  1. 1.
    Bell AL, Brand RA. Roentgenographic changes in the proximal femoral dimensions due to hip rotation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;240:194–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosco JA, Lachiewicz PF, DeMasi R. Survivorship analysis of cemented high modulus total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;294:131–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 6.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckrich SGJ, Noble PC, Tullos HS. Effect of rotation on the radiographic appearance of the femoral canal. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:419–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim Y-H, Kim J-S. Revision hip arthroplasty using strut allografts and fully porous-coated stems. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:454–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koldstad K. Revision THR after periprosthetic femoral fractures. An analysis of 23 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994;65:505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moreland JR, Bernstein ML. Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:141–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Revision total hip arthroplasty. The limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:203–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo García-Rey
    • 1
  • Eduardo García-Cimbrelo
    • 1
  • Ana Cruz-Pardos
    • 1
  • Rosário Madero
    • 2
  1. 1.Orthopaedics DepartmentHospital La Paz-IDi PazMadridSpain
  2. 2.Biostatistics DepartmentHospital La Paz-IDi PazMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations