Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty

  • Trauma Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The rate of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty is rising and the estimated current lifetime incidence is 0.4–2.1%. While most authors recommend revision arthroplasty in patients with loose femoral shaft components, treatment options for patients with stable stem are not fully elucidated.

Method

Against this background we performed a retrospective chart analysis with clinical follow-up examination of 32 cases that sustained a Vancouver type B1 or C periprosthetic fracture (stable stem).

Patients

Overall 16 cases were treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) by plate osteosynthesis and 16 cases by revision arthroplasty (RA). Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, follow-up time interval, time interval from primary hip arthroplasty to fracture and rate of cemented femoral components, but more type C fractures were treated by ORIF.

Results

Functional outcome expressed by the median timed “Up and Go” test did not differ significantly (30 s ORIF vs. 24 s RA, P = 0.19). However, by comparable systemic complications surgery-related complications were significantly more frequent in plate osteosynthesis (ORIF n = 10 vs. RA n = 3, P = 0.03). Based on our results, further studies, preferable via a multicenter approach, should focus on identifying patients that benefit from ORIF in periprosthetic fractures. A misinterpretation of type B2 fractures with loose implant as type B1 fractures may cause implant failure in case of ORIF.

Conclusion

The use of angular stable implants, additional cable wires or bone enhancing means is recommended.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buttaro MA, Farfalli G, Paredes Nunez M, Comba F, Piccaluga F (2007) Locking compression plate fixation of Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(9):1964–1969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chakravarthy J, Bansal R, Cooper J (2007) Locking plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver Type B1 and Type C periprosthetic fractures of femur: a report on 12 patients. Injury 38(6):725–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Erhardt JB, Grob K, Roderer G, Hoffmann A, Forster TN, Kuster MS (2008) Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with the non-contact bridging plate: a new angular stable implant. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(4):409–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Haidar SG, Goodwin MI (2005) Dynamic compression plate fixation for post-operative fractures around the tip of a hip prosthesis. Injury 36(3):417–423

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaab MJ, Stockle U, Schutz M, Stefansky J, Perka C, Haas NP (2006) Stabilisation of periprosthetic fractures with angular stable internal fixation: a report of 13 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(2):105–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lindahl H (2007) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 38(6):651–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

  11. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Oden 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Muller M, Kaab M, Tohtz S, Haas NP, Perka C (2009) Periprosthetic femoral fractures: outcome after treatment with LISS internal fixation or stem replacement in 36 patients. Acta Orthop Belg 75(6):776–783

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ninan TM, Costa ML, Krikler SJ (2007) Classification of femoral periprosthetic fractures. Injury 38(6):661–668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39(2):142–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ricci WM, Bolhofner BR, Loftus T, Cox C, Mitchell S, Borrelli J Jr (2005) Indirect reduction and plate fixation, without grafting, for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures about a stable intramedullary implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(10):2240–2245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Su ET, DeWal H, Di Cesare PE (2004) Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12(1):12–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wutzler S, Laurer HL, Lehnert M, Maier B, Marzi I (2006) Versorgungsstrategien bei periprothetischen Frakturen nach Hüftgelenkersatz. In: Effenberger H, Zichner L, Richolt J (eds) Hüftschäfte. MCU-Vertrieb, Grieskirchen, pp 292–296

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, J.W. Goethe University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

    Helmut L. Laurer, Sebastian Wutzler, Susann Possner, Emanuel V. Geiger, André El Saman, Ingo Marzi & Johannes Frank

Authors
  1. Helmut L. Laurer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Wutzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susann Possner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emanuel V. Geiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. André El Saman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ingo Marzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Johannes Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Wutzler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laurer, H.L., Wutzler, S., Possner, S. et al. Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131, 983–989 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1272-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1272-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation