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.
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

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the radiological and clinical results of our study subjects according to the management algorithm of the Vancouver classification system for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures in hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 18 hips with postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures. The average follow-up was 49 months. The fracture type was determined based on the Vancouver classification system. The management algorithm of the Vancouver classification system was generally applied, but it was modified in some cases according to the surgeon's decision. At the final follow-up, we assessed the radiological results using Beals and Tower's criteria. The functional results were also evaluated by calculating the Harris hip scores. RESULTS: Seventeen of 18 cases (94.4%) achieved primary union at an average of 25.5 weeks. The mean Harris hip score was 92. There was 1 case of nonunion, which was a type C fracture after cemented total hip arthroplasty, and this required a strut allograft. Subsidence was noted in 1 case, but the fracture was united despite the subsidence. There was no other complication. CONCLUSIONS: Although we somewhat veered out of the management algorithm of the Vancouver classification system, the customized treatment, with considering the stability of the femoral stem and the configuration of the fracture, showed favorable overall results.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Algorithms ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/*adverse effects ; Female ; Femoral Fractures/*classification/radiography/*surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Periprosthetic Fractures/*classification/radiography/*surgery ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUNDPeriprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty are getting more prevalent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of combined use of uncemented extensively porous coated femoral components with onlay cortical strut allografts in revision of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

METHODSThirteen hips after total hip arthroplasty in 13 patients who suffered a Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic fracture were treated with an uncemented extensively porous coated femoral component combined with onlay cortical strut allografts. Each patient was assigned a Harris hip score, and a visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and satisfaction. Radiographs were examined for component stability, fracture site and allograft-host union and allograft reconstruction.

RESULTSAt an average of 5.3-year follow-up, no patient required repeat revision. The average Harris hip score was (71.8 +/- 6.3) points, the pain VAS score was (16.6 +/- 4.3) points, and the patient satisfaction VAS score was (81.5 +/- 5.7) points. Radiographic examination showed no detectable loosening of the prostheses, and 12 cases were presented fixation by osseointegration and the other one was stable fibrous ingrown fixation. All fractures united for (5.2 +/- 1.4) months in average. And all onlay strut allografts united to host bone for about (11.5 +/- 2.6) months.

CONCLUSIONSCombined use of uncemented, long stemmed, extensively porous coated implant with cortical onlay strut allografts can achieve good clinic results and high rate of union for both fracture site and allograft-host bone junction. This technique could be used routinely to augment fixation and healing of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures.

Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip ; methods ; Bone Transplantation ; methods ; Female ; Femoral Fractures ; classification ; diagnostic imaging ; surgery ; Hip Prosthesis ; adverse effects ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Radiography ; Transplantation, Homologous ; Treatment Outcome