HSS Journal

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 150–154

Early Post-operative Periprosthetic Femur Fracture in the Presence of a Non-cemented Tapered Wedge Femoral Stem

Original Article

Abstract

Non-cemented femoral fixation in hip arthroplasty has become the standard of practice in the USA. However, recent literature has brought attention to an increasing incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures with certain stem designs. This study examines reasons for early periprosthetic femur fractures in patients with a hip arthroplasty performed using a non-cemented tapered wedge stem design. A multivariate analysis using a matched-cohort design was performed to assess any potential risk factors that may predispose to such fractures. Six of 2,220 hips (0.3%) suffered a periprosthetic femur fracture within the first year after surgery; five of six were Vancouver Type B2. The average time to fracture was 9 weeks. This group of patients had a significantly higher canal–flare index and lower canal–calcar ratio. This complication may be preventable by having a better appreciation of the fit between the implant and the bone during pre-operative planning, with the goal of avoiding a proximal–distal mismatch.

Keywords

femoral stem non-cemented periprosthetic fracture proximal femoral geometry hip arthroplasty 

References

  1. 1.
    Berend ME, Smith A, Meading JB, Ritter MA, Lynch T, Davis K. Long term outcome and risk factors of proximal femoral fracture in uncemented and cemented total hip arthroplasty in 2551 hips. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21: 53-59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry DJ, Dorr LD, Long WT, Dastane M, Taunton MJ. Early femur fracture after THA: Increased prevalence associated with modern N. American practice. 75th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. March 2008, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Patterson JJ, Guerin J. Tapered titanium cementless total hip replacements: a 10- to 13-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 393: 112-120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15: 59–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cook RE, Jenkins PJ, Walmsley PJ, Patton JT, Robinson CM. Risk factors for periprosthetic fractures of the hip. Clin Orthop 2008; 466: 1652-1656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis ET, McKee MD, Waddell JP, Hupel T, Schemitsch EH. Total Hip Arthroplasty Following Failure of Free Vascularized Fibular Graft, J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 110-115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dorr LD. Total hip replacement using APR system. Tech Orthop 1986; 1: 22-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 1995; 44: 293–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernandez-Fernandez R, García-Elias E, Gil-Garay E. Peroperative fractures in uncemented total hip arthrography: results with a single design of stem implant. Int Orthop 2008; 32: 307-313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Froimson MI, Garino J, Machenaud A, Vidalain JP. Minimum 10-year results of a tapered, titanium, hydroxyapatite-coated hip stem: an independent review. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 1-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haddad FS, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures in total hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 1999; 30: 191-207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES, Bryant P. Second-generation proximally coated titanium femoral component: minimum 7-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 465: 117-121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instructional Course Lectures 1998; 47:243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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: 857-865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall AD, Mokris JG, Reitman RD, Dandar A, Mauerhan DR. Cementless titanium tapered-wedge femoral stem: 10- to 15-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19: 546-552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLaughlin JR, Lee KR. Total hip arthroplasty in young patients. 8- to 13-year results using an uncemented stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 373: 153-163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meding JB, Keating EM, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Berend ME. Minimum ten-year follow-up of a straight-stemmed, plasma-sprayed, titanium-alloy, uncemented femoral component in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 92-97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew JT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 235: 148-165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noble PC, Box GG, Kamaric E, Fink MJ, Alexander JW, Tullos HS. The effect of aging on the shape of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; 316: 31-44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spotorno L, Romagnoli S. Indications for the CLS stem. In: Spotorno L, Romagnoli S, eds. The CLS uncemented total hip replacement system. Berne, Switzerland: Protek; 1991Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yeung Y, Chiu KY, Yau WP, Tang WM, Cheung WY, Ng TP. Assessment of the proximal femoral morphology using plain radiograph-can it predict the bone quality? J Arthroplasty 2006; 21:508-513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryLenox Hill HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations