Treatment Results of a Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Case Series: Treatment Method for Vancouver Type B2 Fractures Can Be Customized.
10.4055/cios.2014.6.2.138
- Author:
Takahiro NIIKURA
1
;
Sang Yang LEE
;
Yoshitada SAKAI
;
Kotaro NISHIDA
;
Ryosuke KURODA
;
Masahiro KUROSAKA
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan. tniikura@med.kobe-u.ac.jp
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Femur;
Periprosthetic fracture;
Hip arthroplasty;
Vancouver classification
- MeSH:
Aged;
Aged, 80 and over;
Algorithms;
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/*adverse effects;
Female;
Femoral Fractures/classification/etiology/radiography/*surgery;
Hemiarthroplasty/adverse effects;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Periprosthetic Fractures/classification/etiology/radiography/*surgery;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery
2014;6(2):138-145
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Currently, an algorithmic approach for deciding treatment options according to the Vancouver classification is widely used for treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. However, this treatment algorithm based on the Vancouver classification lacks consideration of patient physiology and surgeon's experience (judgment), which are also important for deciding treatment options. The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment results and discuss the treatment options using a case series. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive cases with periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty were retrospectively reviewed. A locking compression plate system was used for osteosynthesis during the study period. The fracture type was determined by the Vancouver classification. The treatment algorithm based on the Vancouver classification was generally applied, but was modified in some cases according to the surgeon's judgment. The reasons for modification of the treatment algorithm were investigated. Mobility status, ambulatory status, and social status were assessed before the fracture and at the latest follow-up. Radiological results including bony union and stem stability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen cases were treated by osteosynthesis, two by revision arthroplasty and three by conservative treatment. Four cases of type B2 fractures with a loose stem, in which revision arthroplasty is recommended according to the Vancouver classification, were treated by other options. Of these, three were treated by osteosynthesis and one was treated conservatively. The reasons why the three cases were treated by osteosynthesis were technical difficulty associated with performance of revision arthroplasty owing to severe central migration of an Austin-Moore implant in one case and subsequent severe hip contracture and low activity in two cases. The reasons for the conservative treatment in the remaining case were low activity, low-grade pain, previous wiring around the fracture and light weight. All patients obtained primary bony union and almost fully regained their prior activities. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest reaching a decision regarding treatment methods of periprosthetic femoral fractures by following the algorithmic approach of the Vancouver classification in addition to the assessment of each patient's hip joint pathology, physical status and activity, especially for type B2 fractures. The customized treatments demonstrated favorable overall results.
