Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 2, pp 599–603

Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Modular Fluted, Tapered Stems

  • Matthew P. Abdel
  • David G. Lewallen
  • Daniel J. Berry
Symposium: 2013 Hip Society Proceedings



Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures is challenging, and high failure and complication rates have been reported in many series. The optimal techniques and implants for the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures remain in debate.


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a relatively new class of femoral implants, uncemented fluted, tapered, modular stems, to treat periprosthetic femur fractures; we specifically evaluated (1) fracture union; (2) implant stability; (3) patient outcomes; and (4) complications.


We retrospectively identified 44 Vancouver B2 (25 patients) and B3 (19 patients) periprosthetic femur fractures treated consecutively with fluted, tapered stems at a single institution from 2000 to 2006. The mean patient age was 72 years (range, 34–92 years), and 24 were women. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 4.5 years; range, 2–8 years).


Forty-three of 44 (98%) fractures healed radiographically and 43 of 44 (98%) femoral components were stable radiographically at latest followup. The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 83. There were seven additional reoperations (five for recurrent instability, two for deep infections).


Modular fluted, tapered stems provide a reliable treatment method for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures with a high rate of fracture union and implant osteointegration. The most common complication, instability, may be reduced by more consistent use of larger femoral head diameters.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  1. 1.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. 2010 Annual Report. Adelaide, Australia: AOA; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beals RK, Tower SS. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;327:238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ. Total hip arthroplasty in patients with proximal femoral deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:262–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224–231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:128–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.
    Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect. 1998;47:237–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan E, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:94–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:857–865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA. Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:372–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Park MS, Lim YJ, Chung WC, Ham DH, Lee SH. Management of periprosthetic femur fractures treated with distal fixation using a modular femoral stem using an anterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1270–1276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS. Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:751–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G. Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP Titan Revision Stem: outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years’ follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:306–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Tamvakopoulos GS, Servant CT, Clark G, Ivory JP. Medium-term follow-up series using a modular distal fixation prosthesis to address proximal femoral bone deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5- to 9-year follow-up study. Hip Int. 2007;17:143–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A, Schmalholz A, Stark A. Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:16–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Siebert C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R. A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop. 2000;24:134–138.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew P. Abdel
    • 1
  • David G. Lewallen
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Berry
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations