Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vancouver type B 2 fractures: best choice of treatment

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Abstract

Vancouver type B 2 fractures occur at the tip or just around the stem with the stem being loose but the proximal bone stock is usually well preserved. Their management can be challenging. Fracture and patient-related factors can influence in decision-making process. Both cemented and uncemented revision stems have been usually used with variable success. However, robust recommendations with regard to which treatment might be superior to other cannot be made. Until prospective randomized control trials provide some sound recommendations, the type of treatment used should be individualized.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplast 20(7):857–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM 2, Malchau H (2007) Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(12):2658–2662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regnér H, Herberts P, Malchau H (2006) Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(6):1215–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Della Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2004) The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:55–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of the femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplast 15(1):59–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N (2012) Interobserver and Intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver Classification System of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 27(6):1047–1050, Epub 2012 Mar 14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS (2008) European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1576–1579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP (2011) The pseudo A(LT) periprosthetic fracture: it’s really a B2. Orthopedics 34(9):e479–e481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Duwelius PJ, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, Talbott V, Ellis TJ, Butler JBV (2004) A prospective, modernized treatment protocol for periprosthetic femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 35(4):485–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1998) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect 47:237–242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumann D, Thaler C, Dorn U (2012) Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using a modular cementless stem without allografting. Int Orthop 36(5):1045–1050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parvizi J, Rapuri VR, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ (2004) Treatment protocol for proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):8–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sledge JB 3, Abiri A (2002) An algorithm for the treatment of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Arthroplast 17(7):887–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chevillotte CJ, Ali MH, Trousdale RT, Larson DR, Gullerud RE, Berry DJ (2009) Inflammatory laboratory markers in periprosthetic hip fractures. J Arthroplast 24(5):722–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Corten K, Macdonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB, Naudie DD (2012) Results of cemented femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in the elderly. J Arthroplast 27(2):220–225, Epub 2011 Jul 12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Katzer A, Ince A, Wodtke J, Loehr JF (2006) Component exchange in the treatment of periprosthetic femoal fractures. J Arthroplast 21(4):572–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Singer BR, Christie J (1997) Results of an operative policy in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture. J Orthop Trauma 11(3):170–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mont MA, Maar DC (1994) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty. A statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients. J Arthroplast 9(5):511–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG (2003) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A(11):2156–2162

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tsiridis E, Narvani AA, Haddad FS, Timperley JA, Gie GA (2004) Impaction femoral allografting and cemented revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(8):1124–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Briant-Evans TW, Veeramootoo D, Tsiridis E, Hubble MJ (2009) Cement-in-cement stem revision for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 80(5):548–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Crawford RW (2011) Cement-in-cement femoral revision for the treatment of highly selected vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures. J Arthroplast 26(2):335–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mulay S, Hassan T, Birtwistle S, Power R (2005) Management of types B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures by a tapered, fluted, and distally fixed stem. J Arthroplast 20(6):751–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Berry DJ (2003) Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:224–231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S, Schulz MS, Fuerst M (2007) A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:105–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moran MC (1996) Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total hip arthroplasty with an extensively coated femoral component. J Arthroplast 11(8):981–988

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Parvizi J, Vegari DN (2011) Periprosthetic proximal femur fractures: current concepts. J Orthop Trauma 25(Suppl 2):S77–S81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2004) Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:227–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mertl P, Philippot R, Rosset P, Migaud H, Tabutin J, Van de Velde D (2011) Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures. Int Orthop 35(2):275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eingartner C, Ochs U, Egetemeyer D, Volkmann R (2007) Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with the Bicontact revision stem. Z Orthop Unfall 145(Suppl 1):S29–S33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Incavo SJ, Beard DM, Pupparo F, Ries M, Wiedel J (1998) One-stage revision of periprosthetic fractures around loose cemented total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 27(1):35–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ko PS, Lam JJ, Tio MK, Lee OB, Ip FK (2003) Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fractures in geriatric patients. J Arthroplast 18(4):446–452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Lewis P, Berger RA, Sporer SM, Paprosky W (2008) Extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplast 23(4):527–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Macdonald SJ, Paprosky WG, Jablonsky WS, Magnus RG (2001) Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplast 16(3):379–383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Shea K, Quinlan JF, Kutty S, Mulcahy D, Brady OH (2005) 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 87(12):1617–1621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Park M-S, Lim Y-J, Chung W-C, Ham D-H, Lee S-H (2009) Management of periprosthetic femur fractures treated with distal fixation using a modular femoral stem using an anterolateral approach. J Arthroplast 24(8):1270–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rayan F, Haddad F (2010) Periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty—a review. Hip Int 20(4):418–426

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J, et al. Long cementless stems used to treat periprosthetic fractures of the femur in the elderly. A cautionary note. Presented at EFORT meeting, Madrid, June 2–5, poster 587. www.efort.org/madrid2010/finalprogramme/PosterContent.asp

  40. Weiss RJ, André S, Kärrholm J (2011) A modular cementless stem vs cemented long-stem prostheses in revision surgery of the hip. A population-based study from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 82(2):136–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Garbuz DS (2010) Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 46(2):491–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Harris B, Owen JR, Wayne JS, Jiranek WA (2010) Does femoral component loosening predispose to femoral fracture?: an in vitro comparison of cemented hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(2):497–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Giannoudis PV, Kanakaris NK, Tsiridis E (2007) Principles of internal fixation and selection of implants for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 38(6):669–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tsiridis E, Spence G, Gamie Z, El Masry MA, Giannoudis PV (2007) Grafting for periprosthetic femoral fractures: strut, impaction or femoral replacement. Injury 38(6):688–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Paseo Vall d’Hebron, 119, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Ernesto Guerra-Farfán, Lluís Carrera, David Muñetón & Marc Aguilar

  2. Department of Orthopedic Joint Surgery and Endoprosthetics, Endo-Klinik Hamburg, Holstenstrasse 2 22767, Hamburg, Germany

    Àkos Zàhar

  3. Academic Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Peter V. Giannoudis

Authors
  1. Ernesto Guerra-Farfán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lluís Carrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Muñetón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Aguilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Àkos Zàhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter V. Giannoudis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernesto Guerra-Farfán.

Additional information

Special Issue: Periprosthetic fracture treatment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guerra-Farfán, E., Carrera, L., Muñetón, D. et al. Vancouver type B 2 fractures: best choice of treatment. Eur Orthop Traumatol 4, 81–88 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12570-012-0119-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12570-012-0119-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation