Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a comparative study of stem revision versus internal fixation with plate

  • Original Article • HIP - ARTHROPLASTY
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The aim is to compare stem revision versus internal fixation with plate in the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective review of 34 consecutive patients admitted from June 1998 to May 2017. One patient was treated conservatively, 11 with stem revision (group 1), 20 with plate, screws and cerclage (group 2), one patient with cerclage alone and another by Girdlestone procedure. We assessed surgical complications, mortality within 1 year, functional outcome with Harris Hip Score and radiographic outcome with Beals and Tower’s criteria.

Results

At an average follow-up of 30.1 months in group 1, we had 36.4% of patients with complications, HHS of 66.8, radiographic outcome “excellent-good” in 91% of cases. In group 2 we had 25% of patients with complications, HHS of 71.8, radiographic outcome “excellent-good” in 80% of cases. There were no significant differences in 1-year mortality between the two groups. In group 2, the best outcomes were obtained in uncemented straight stems with Johansson type 1 fracture and in cemented polished stems with stem detachment from the cement–bone complex. Whatever treatment was adopted, there was an overall worsening in quality of life.

Conclusions

Stem revision remains the treatment of choice in Vancouver B2 fractures, but, in selected cases, internal fixation with plate, screws and cerclage can be a viable alternative option.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 Arthroplasty 20(7):857–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marshall RA, Weaver MJ, Sodickson A, Khurana B (2017) Periprosthetic femoral fractures in the emergency department: what the orthopedic surgeon wants to know. Radiographics 37(4):1202–1217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Odén A, Garellick G (2006) Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(1):26–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dennis MG, Simon JA, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, DiCesare PE (2000) Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques. J Arthroplasty 15(4):523–528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Katzer A, Ince A, Wodtke J, Loehr JF (2006) Component exchange in treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty 21(4):572–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Young SW, Walker CG, Pitto RP (2008) Functional outcome of femoral peri prosthetic fracture and revision hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair study from the New Zealand Registry. Acta Orthop 79(4):483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Joestl J, Hofbauer M, Lang N, Tiefenboeck T, Hajdu S (2016) Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Injury 47(4):939–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Christophe A, Troussel S, Detrembleur C, Putineanu D (2017) Surgery of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients: an alternative way with internal fixation. SM Gerontol Geriatr Res 1(2):1006

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):1435–1442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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(4):737–755

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tower SS, Beals RK (1999) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement: the Oregon experience. Orthop Clin N Am 30(2):235–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Khan T, Grindlay D, Ollivere BJ, Scammell BE, Manktelow AR, Pearson RG (2017) A systematic review of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 99-B(4 Supple B):17–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 Arthroplasty 18(4):446–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Marx A, Beier A, Jung L, Lohmann CH, Halder AM (2012) Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures treated with the uncemented Wagner revision stem. Hip Int 22(3):286–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Haasper C, Enayatollahi MA, Gehrke T (2015) Treatment of Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop 39(10):1989–1993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Solomon LB, Hussenbocus SM, Carbone TA, Callary SA, Howie DW (2015) Is internal fixation alone advantageous in selected B2 periprosthetic fractures? ANZ J Surg 85(3):169–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Niikura T, Lee SY, Sakai Y, Nishida K, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2014) Treatment results of a periprosthetic femoral fracture case series: treatment method for Vancouver type B2 fractures can be customized. Clin Orthop Surg 6(2):138–145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 Arthroplasty 20(6):751–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gitajn IL, Heng M, Weaver MJ, Casemyr N, May C, Vrahas MS, Harris MB (2017) Mortality following surgical management of Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures. J Orthop Trauma 31(1):9–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Boer FA, Sariali E (2017) Comparison of anatomic vs. straight femoral stem design in total hip replacement—femoral canal fill in vivo. Hip Int 27(3):241–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Timperley AJ, Gie GA, Lee AJ, Ling RS (1993) The femoral component as a taper in cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(Suppl I):33

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moreta J, Aguirre U, de Ugarte OS, Jáuregui I, Mozos JL (2015) Functional and radiological outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. Injury 46(2):292–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Canbora K, Kose O, Polat A, Aykanat F, Gorgec M (2013) Management of Vancouver type B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using an uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23(5):545–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Integrata of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani n.1, 37126, Verona, Italy

    Mauro Spina & Andrea Scalvi

Authors
  1. Mauro Spina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Scalvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauro Spina.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spina, M., Scalvi, A. Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a comparative study of stem revision versus internal fixation with plate. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28, 1133–1142 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2181-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2181-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation