Skip to main content
Log in

Revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur

Prothesenwechsel bei periprothetischen Frakturen des proximalen Femurs

  • Operative Techniken
  • Published:
Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Hip revision arthroplasty of a loose stem in the case of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures and cerclage wiring of the femoral shaft.

Indications

Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur.

Contraindications

Periprosthetic joint infection. Interprosthetic femoral fractures between the ends of hip and knee prosthetic stems that require total replacement of the femur.

Surgical technique

Extended posterolateral approach to the tip of the fracture. Exposure along the septum intermusculare laterale with ligation of the perforating vessels below the fracture. Longitudinal osteotomy of the proximal fragment above the linea aspera using an oscillating saw under cooling. Ventral proximal osteotomy at the corner of the vasto-gluteal sling after short muscular incision using an osteotome chisel. Opening of the proximal fragment with lifting up of the bony flap like a transfemoral approach. Removal of the loosened prosthetic stem and possibly the cement. Preparation of the distal fixation zone of the modular cementless revision stem in the isthmus of the femur distal of the fracture. Implantation of the distal component of the modular cementless revision stem. Use of additional distal interlocking screws in cases of destroyed isthmus with a fixation zone of less than 3 cm for the distal prosthetic component. Trial reposition after combination with the proximal trial component in situ. Assembly with the original proximal component in situ. Reposition with the original proximal component. Wound closure.

Postoperative management

Thrombosis prophylaxis, physiotherapy, gait training with partial loading of the limb at 10 kg for a period of 6 weeks with hip flexion limited to 70°. Then, free range of movement and increased loading by 10 kg per week.

Results

In all, 23 patients with periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 (15 patients) and type B3 (eight patients)—in 15 women and eight men in the age range of 70.7 ± 12.2 (42–88) years—were followed up for at least 5 years. All fractures healed with a mean time of 14.4 ± 5.3 weeks. No cases of subsidence of the stem were observed and, according to the classification of Engh et al. concerning the biological fixation of the stem, there was bony ingrowth fixation in 21 cases and two cases of stable fibrous fixation. One dislocation occurred and there were no cases of intraoperative fracture. The Harris Hip Score rose continually following the operations: from a 3-month postoperative score of 65.0 ± 16.8 points, it rose to 86.9 ± 16.2 points after 24 months and to 89.0 ± 14.3 points after 5 years. According to the classification of Beals and Tower, all results were rated as excellent, i.e., the prefracture functional status was restored in all cases.

Zusammenfassung

Operationsziel

Wechsel der gelockerten Schaftkomponente bei periprothetischer Fraktur vom Typ Vancouver B2 und B3 auf eine modulare, zementlose Revisionsprothese sowie Osteosynthese mit Cerclagen.

Indikationen

Periprothetische Fraktur vom Typ Vancouver B2 und B3.

Kontraindikationen

Periprothetischer Infekt. Interprothetische Fraktur zwischen gestielten Prothesen des proximalen und distalen Femurs, die einen totalen Femurersatz erfordert.

Operationstechnik

Erweiterter posterolateraler Zugang bis unterhalb der Fraktur. Vorgehen im Septum intermusculare laterale unter Ligatur der Vasa perforantes bis distal der Fraktur. Längsosteotomie des proximalen Fragments oberhalb der Linea aspera mit oszillierender Säge unter Kühlung. Ventrale proximale Osteotomie am vastoglutealen Übergang mit Osteotomiemeißel nach kurzer Inzision der Muskulatur. Eröffnen des proximalen Fragments, wie bei einem transfemoralen Zugang, durch Hochklappen des Knochendeckels. Entfernen der gelockerten Schaftprothese und ggf. des Knochenzements. Präparieren des Fixationsbetts der modularen, zementlosen Revisionsprothese im Isthmus des Femur distal der Fraktur. Implantation der distalen Komponente des modularen, zementlosen Revisionsschaftes. Verwendung zusätzlicher Verriegelungsschrauben bei einer distalen Fixationszone unter 3 cm. Probereposition mit kombiniertem proximalem Probeteil. In-situ-Montage der originalen proximalen Prothesenkomponente. Reposition mit Original-Prothesenkopf.

Weiterbehandlung

Thromboseprophylaxe, Physiotherapie, Gangschulung mit Teilbelastung von 10 bis 20 kg für die Dauer von 6 Wochen. Anschließend schrittweise Belastungssteigerung bis zur Vollbelastung 3 Monate postoperativ. Falls Teilbelastung nicht möglich (z. B. geriatrischer Patient): Belastung wie vom Patienten toleriert). Vermeidung von gleichzeitiger Flexion, Innenrotation und Adduktion für 3 Monate. Für 6 Wochen Limitierung der Flexion auf 70 Grad.

Ergebnisse

Alle 23 periprothetischen Frakturen (15 Vancouver B2 und 8 Vancouver B3) bei 15 Frauen und 8 Männern im Alter von 70,7 ± 12,2 (42–88) Jahren mit einem Nachuntersuchungszeitraum von mindestens 5 Jahren waren nach durchschnittlich 14,4 ± 5,3 Wochen geheilt. Der Prothesenschaft war bei keinem Patienten eingesunken. Einmal trat eine Luxation auf, eine intraoperative Fraktur in keinem Fall. Der Harris-Hip-Score stieg postoperativ kontinuierlich an: von 65,0 ± 16,8 Punkten nach 3 Monaten auf 86,9 ± 16,2 Punkte 24 Monate postoperativ und 89,0 ± 14,3 Punkte 5 Jahre postoperativ. Entsprechend der Klassifikation von Beals und Tower konnten alle Ergebnisse als exzellent eingestuft werden, da bei allen mindestens die gleiche Funktionalität wie vor dem Unfall erreicht wurde.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adolphson P, Jonsson U, Kalen R (1987) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 106:353–357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. 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 

  4. Bethea JS, DeAndrade JR, Fleming LL et al (1982) Proximal femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:95–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooke PH, Newman JH (1988) Fractures of the femur in relation to cemented hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70-B:386–389

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE (1990) The case of porous-coated hip implants: the femoral side. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:63–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fink B, Fuerst M, Hahn M et al (2005) Fixationsprinzipien des zementlosen modularen Hüftrevisionsschaftes Revitan. Eine anatomische Studie. Unfallchirurg 108:1029–1037

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J (2005) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125:433–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fink B, Grossmann A, Schubring S et al (2007) A modified transfemoral approach using modular cementless revision stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:105–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fink B, Grossmann A (2007) Modified transfemoral approach to revision arthroplasty with uncemented modular revision stems. Oper Orthop Traumatol 19:32–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fink B, Grossman A, Schubring S et al (2009) Short-term results of hip revisions with a curved cementless modular stem in association with the surgical approach. Archiv Orthop Trauma Surg 128:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fink B, Grossmann A, Fuerst M (2010) Distal interlocking screws with a modular revision stem for revision total hip arthroplasty in severe bone defects. J Arthroplasty 25:759–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fink B, Grossmann A, Singer J (2012) Hip revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 and B3. J Orthop Trauma 26:206–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harris WH (1969) 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 51:737–755

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heeg P (1991) Präoperative Rasur des Operationsgebietes. Operat Orthop Traumtol 3:218–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kavanagh BF (1992) Femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 23:249–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ko PS, Lam JJ, Tio MK et al (2003) Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fractures in geriatric patients. J Arthroplasty 13:446–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine BR, Della Valle CJ, Lewis P et al (2008) Extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty 23:527–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (1998) Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect 47:243–249

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Morrey BF, Kavanagh BF (1992) Complications with revision of the femoral component of total hip arthroplasty: comparison between cemented and uncemented techniques. J Arthroplasty 7:71–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Shea K, Quinlan JF, Kutty S et al (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-B:1617–1621

  26. Park M-S, Lim Y-J, Chung W-C et al (2009) Management of periprosthetic femur fractures treated with distal fixation using a modular femoral stem using an anterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty 24:1270–1276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sledge JB III, Abiri A (2002) An algorithm for the treatment of Vancouver Type B2 periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty 17:887–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wagner M, Wagner H (1999) Der transfemorale Zugang zur Revision von Hüftendoprothesen. Operat Orthop Traumtol 11:278–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest. B. Fink is consultant for the company Zimmer. The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Fink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fink, B. Revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. Oper Orthop Traumatol 26, 455–468 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-014-0305-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-014-0305-4

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation