Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 132, Issue 6, pp 813–822 | Cite as

Percutaneous cerclage wiring and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO): a percutaneous reduction technique in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures

  • Theerachai ApivatthakakulEmail author
  • C. Phornphutkul
  • T. Bunmaprasert
  • K. Sananpanich
  • Alberto Fernandez Dell’Oca
Trauma Surgery



Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) associated at or near a well-fixed femoral prostheses (Vancouver type-B1) present a clinical challenge due to the quality of the bone stock and instability of the fracture.


The purpose of this study was to present a novel reduction technique and analyze clinical and radiographic outcome in patients with Vancouver type-B1 fractures treated with percutaneous cerclage wiring for fracture reduction and maintenance of reduction with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) utilizing a locking compression plate (LCP).


Between March 2007 and December 2008, ten consecutive patients with spiral, oblique or wedge Vancouver type-B1 were treated with closed percutaneous cerclage wiring using a new cerclage passer instrument (Synthes®) through small 2–3 cm incisions for reduction and maintenance of reduction. Internal fixation with MIPO was obtained utilizing a long LCP Synthes® bridging the fracture. The reduction time, fixation time and operative time were recorded. The rehabilitation protocol consisted of partial weight bearing as tolerated. Clinical and radiographic outcomes included evidence of union, return to pre-injury mobility, and surgical complications were recorded.


There were three men and seven women with an average age of 74 years (range 47–84 years) at the time the fracture occured. The average follow-up was 13.2 months. One patient died 2 months after surgery due to cardiovascular problems and was excluded. The average reduction time with percutaneous cerclage wiring was 24.4 min (range 7–45 min). The average fixation time was 79 min (range 53–100 min). The average operative time was 103 min (range 75–140 min). Blood loss was minimal and only two patients needed a blood transfusion. All fractures healed with a mean time to union of 18 weeks (range 16–20 weeks). There was one implant which bent 10° in the post-operative period but went on to heal uneventfully within 16 weeks. There was no evidence of loosening of any implants. Seven patients returned to their previous level of mobility. Two patients required a walker. There were no implant failures, wound complications or infections.


Percutaneous reduction of spiral, oblique or wedge-type B1 PPFs with percutaneous cerclage wiring combined with minimally invasive locking plate osteosynthesis provided satisfactory reduction, adequate stability and healing in nine patients. Our early results suggest that this reduction technique and fixation may be a useful solution for this growing challenge in orthopaedics. The authors caution that this technique must be done carefully to avoid serious complications, e.g., vascular injury.


Periprosthetic femoral fracture Vancouver type B1 Treatment Percutaneous cerclage wiring Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) 


Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest is present.


  1. 1.
    Zuurmond RG, van Wijhe W, van Raay JJ, Bulstra SK (2010) High incidence of complications and poor clinical outcome in the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: an analysis of 71 cases. Injury 41(6):629–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M, Yang A (2010) Locking compression plate and cerclage band for type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures preliminary results at average 30-month follow-up. J Arthroplast. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.03.031 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scott RD, Turner RH, Leitzes SM, Aufranc OE (1975) Femoral fractures in conjunction with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57(4):494–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khan MA, O’Driscoll M (1977) Fractures of the femur during total hip replacement and their management. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59(1):36–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johansson JE, McBroom R, Barrington TW, Hunter GA (1981) Fracture of the ipsilateral femur in patients with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63(9):1435–1442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bethea JS 3rd, DeAndrade JR, Fleming LL, Lindenbaum SD, Welch RB (1982) Proximal femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:95–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Habernek H, Walch G, Dengg C, Orthner E (1989) Percutaneous Goetze cerclage in torsion fractures of the tibia. A computer-assisted follow-up of 186 cases. Aktuelle Traumatol 19(2):73–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsiridis E, Haddad FS, Gie GA (2003) Dall-Miles plates for periprosthetic femoral fractures. A critical review of 16 cases. Injury 34(2):107–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mast JJR, Ganz R (1989) Planning and reduction technique in fracture surgery. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krettek C, Schandelmaier P, Miclau T, Tscherne H (1997) Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) using the DCS in proximal and distal femoral fractures. Injury 28(Suppl 1):A20–A30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Apivatthakakul T, Chiewcharntanakit S (2009) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in the treatment of the femoral shaft fracture where intramedullary nailing is not indicated. Int Orthop 33(4):1119–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bong MR, Egol KA, Koval KJ, Kummer FJ, Su ET, Iesaka K, Bayer J, Di Cesare PE (2002) Comparison of the LISS and a retrograde-inserted supracondylar intramedullary nail for fixation of a periprosthetic distal femur fracture proximal to a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):876–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ricci WM, Bolhofner BR, Loftus T, Cox C, Mitchell S, Borrelli J Jr (2005) Indirect reduction and plate fixation, without grafting, for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures about a stable intramedullary implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(10):2240–2245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chakravarthy J, Bansal R, Cooper J (2007) Locking plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B1 and type C periprosthetic fractures of femur: a report on 12 patients. Injury 38(6):725–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fulkerson E, Tejwani N, Stuchin S, Egol K (2007) Management of periprosthetic femur fractures with a first generation locking plate. Injury 38(8):965–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pike J, Davidson D, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, O’Brien PJ, Masri BA (2009) Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17(11):677–688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sen R, Prasad P, Kumar S, Nagi O (2007) Periprosthetic femoral fractures around well fixed implants: a simple method of fixation using LC-DCP with trochanteric purchase. Acta Orthop Belg 73(2):200–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haddad FS, Duncan CP, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Gross AE, Chandler HP (2002) Periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed implants: use of cortical onlay allografts with or without a plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(6):945–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ricci WM, Borrelli J Jr (2007) Operative management of periprosthetic femur fractures in the elderly using biological fracture reduction and fixation techniques. Injury 38(Suppl 3):S53–S58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perren SM (2002) The technology of minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis (MIPO). Injury 33(Suppl 1):VI–VIIPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gautier E, Sommer C (2003) Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 34(Suppl 2):B63–B76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abhaykumar S, Elliott DS (2000) Percutaneous plate fixation for periprosthetic femoral fractures—a preliminary report. Injury 31(8):627–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buttaro MA, Farfalli G, Paredes Nunez M, Comba F, Piccaluga F (2007) Locking compression plate fixation of Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(9):1964–1969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Habernek H (1991) Percutaneous cerclage wiring and interlocking nailing for treatment of torsional fractures of the tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 267:164–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Steijn MJ, Verhaar JA (1997) Osteonecrosis caused by percutaneous cerclage wiring of a tibial fracture: case report. J Trauma 43(3):521–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perren SM, Fernandez Dell’Oca A, Lenz M, Windolf M (2011) Cerclage, evolution and potential of a Cinderella technology. An overview with reference to periprosthetic fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 78(3):190–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirby BM, Wilson JW (1991) Effect of circumferential bands on cortical vascularity and viability. J Orthop Res 9(2):174–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T, Schandelmaier P, Tscherne H (1999) The topography of the perforating vessels of the deep femoral artery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 368:255–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Farouk O, Krettek C, Miclau T, Schandelmaier P, Guy P, Tscherne H (1997) Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and vascularity: preliminary results of a cadaver injection study. Injury 28(Suppl 1):A7–A12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mehta V, Finn HA (2005) Femoral artery and vein injury after cerclage wiring of the femur: a case report. J Arthroplasty 20(6):811–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pape HC, Tarkin IS (2009) Intraoperative reduction techniques for difficult femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23(5 Suppl):S6–S11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Erhardt JB, Grob K, Roderer G, Hoffmann A, Forster TN, Kuster MS (2008) Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with the non-contact bridging plate: a new angular stable implant. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(4):409–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kumar V, Kanabar P, Owen PJ, Rushton N (2008) Less invasive stabilization system for the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23(3):446–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ebraheim NA, Gomez C, Ramineni SK, Liu J (2009) Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures adjacent to a well-fixed femoral stem with reversed distal femoral locking plate. J Trauma 66(4):1152–1157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ehlinger M, Bonnomet F, Adam P (2010) Periprosthetic femoral fractures: the minimally invasive fixation option. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(3):304–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theerachai Apivatthakakul
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Phornphutkul
    • 1
  • T. Bunmaprasert
    • 1
  • K. Sananpanich
    • 1
  • Alberto Fernandez Dell’Oca
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of MedicineChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  2. 2.British HospitalMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations