Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Periprosthetic fractures around cementless hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We studied 14 periprosthetic femoral fractures out of a series of 619 hydroxyapatite coated hip implants and compared the outcome to published treatment algorithms using the Vancouver classification. There were five type A fractures, six B1, two B2, and one type B3 fracture. All but one type A fractures were treated conservatively. Compared with the Vancouver classification, we observed a different fracture type in the type B fractures. No fractures at the tip of the stem were seen, as in cemented implants. Three B1 fractures were treated operatively due to fracture displacement, and three were treated conservatively. The B2 and B3 fractures were managed with long, uncemented, revision stems because of a disrupted bone–prosthesis interface. All fractures healed well. This study confirms that the modified algorithm of management of periprosthetic fractures, using the Vancouver classification, is a simple, reproducible, classification system for uncemented prostheses. Conservative treatment is a valid option if the implant is stable whilst surgical intervention is mandatory if the implant is loose.

Résumé

Nous avons étudié 14 fractures fémorales péri prothétiques dans une série de 619 implants de la hanche recouverts d’hydroxyapatite et nous avons comparé le résultat à l’algorithme de traitement utilisant la classification de Vancouver. Il y avait cinq fractures de type A, six de type B1, deux de type B2 et une de type B3. Toutes les fractures de type A, sauf une, ont été traités d’une manière conservatrice. Comparé à la classification de Vancouver nous avons observé un type de fracture différent dans le type B. Aucune fracture à l’extrémité de la tige n’a été vue comme dans les implants cimentés. Trois fractures B1 ont été opérées à cause du déplacement et trois a été traité d’une manière conservatrice. Les fractures B2 et B3 ont été traités avec des tiges longues de révision, sans ciment, à cause d’une interface os-prothèse interrompu. Toutes les fractures ont consolidé. Cette étude confirme que l’algorithme modifié de gestion des fractures péri prothétiques, en utilisant la classification de Vancouver, est un système de classification simple, reproductible, pour les modalités du traitement avec des implants sans ciment. Le traitement conservateur est une option valable en cas d’implant stable, cependant qu’en cas d’implant descellé l’intervention chirurgicale est obligatoire.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop 327:238–246

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berry DJ (1999) Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 30:183–190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1999) The treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur using cortical onlay allograft struts. Orthop Clin North Am 30:249–257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooke PH, Newman JH (1982) Fractures of the femur in relation to cemented hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70:368–369

    Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Duwelius PJ, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, Talbott V, Ellis TJ, Butler JB (2004) A prospective, modernized treatment protocol for periprosthetic femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 35:485–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gill TJ, Sledge JB, Orler R, Ganz R (1999) Lateral insufficiency fractures of the femur caused by osteopenia and varus angulation: a complication of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14:982–987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heekin RD, Engh CA, Herzwurm PJ (1996) Fractures through cystic lesions of the greater trochanter. A cause of late pain after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:757–760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Johansson JE, McBroom R, Barrington TW, Hunter GA (1981) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur in patients with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:1435–1442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Learmonth ID (2004) The management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:13–19

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lotke PA, Wong RY, Ecker ML (1986) Stress fracture as a cause of chronic pain following revision total hip arthroplasty. Report of two cases. Clin Orthop 206:147–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop 420:80–95

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mont MA, Maar DC (1994) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty. A statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients. J Arthroplasty 9:511–519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Oosterbos CJ, Rahmy AI, Tonino AJ, Witpeerd W (2004) High survival rate of hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses: 100 consecutive hips followed for 10 years. Acta Orthop Scand 75:127–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rahmy AI, Gosens T, Blake GM, Tonino A, Fogelman I (2004) Periprosthetic bone remodelling of two types of uncemented femoral implant with proximal hydroxyapatite coating: a 3-year follow-up study addressing the influence of prosthesis design and preoperative bone density on periprosthetic bone loss. Osteoporos Int 15:281–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tadross TS, Nanu AM, Buchanan MJ, Checketts RG (2000) Dall–Miles plating for periprosthetic B1 fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty 15:47–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tonino AJ, Rahmy AI (2000) The hydroxyapatite-ABG hip system: 5- to 7-year results from an international multicentre study. The International ABG Study Group. J Arthroplasty 15:274–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tonino AJ, Therin M, Doyle C (1999) Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Histology and histomorphometry around five components retrieved at post mortem, J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:148–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tower SS, Beals RK (1999) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement: the Oregon experience. Orthop Clin North Am 30:235–247

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Rietbergen B, Huiskes R (2001) Load transfer and stress shielding of the hydroxyapatite-ABG hip: a study of stem length and proximal fixation. J Arthroplasty 16:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu CC, Au MK, Wu SS, Lin LC (1999) Risk factors for postoperative femoral fracture in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Formos Med Assoc 98:190–194

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Tonino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Wal, B.C.H., Vischjager, M., Grimm, B. et al. Periprosthetic fractures around cementless hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 29, 235–240 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0657-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0657-3

Keywords

Navigation