Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture.

PURPOSE: According to Vancouver classification, B2 type fractures are most often treated with removal of the loose stem and implantation of a long stem that bypasses the fracture site. However, there is a controversy about the stem fixation that should be used: cemented or cementless. Hence, this study aims to compare cemented and cementless stems in prosthetic revision due to Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fracture. METHODS: A retrospective study was done including all the patients treated with stem exchange due to VB2 periprosthetic hip fracture in a tertiary hospital between 2015 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to the stem fixation used: cemented or cementless. Functional outcomes, hospital stay, surgical time, complication rate, and mortality were compared between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: Of the 30 included patients, 13 (43.4%) were treated with cementless stems and 17 (56.7%) with cemented stems. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, anesthesia risk scale (ASA) or functional capacity prior to the intervention. Patients treated with cementless stems had a higher complication and reintervention rate than those treated with cemented stems: 62 and 45% versus 34 and 6% (p = 0.035; p = 0.010), respectively. Furthermore, in the group of cementless stems a higher proportion of non-union was found (53.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.037). Also, the hospital stay (33 vs. 24 days; p = 0.037) and the time to full weight-bearing (21 days vs. 9 days; p < 0.001) were longer in the cementless stem group. CONCLUSION: Cemented fixation in stem revision due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture could be an optimal option with faster recovery which could decrease the rate of complications and reintervention, without compromising the fracture healing and patient mortality. Thus, this option can be considered when an anatomical reduction can be obtained, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities in which a less aggressive surgical option should be considered.

Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures treatment: fix or replace? A retrospective study comparing both techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures involve stem stability and they have been classically treated with revision surgery. Crucial factors such as age, clinical comorbidities and functional status are often neglected. The current study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or femoral stem exchange. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that includes all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures in a tertiary referral hospital from 2016 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1. Patients treated with an ORIF and Group 2. Patients treated with stem replacement. The outcomes that were compared between groups included demographic data, functional capacity, complications and mortality. RESULTS: 29 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures were finally analyzed. 11 (37.9%) were treated with ORIF (Group 1) and 18 (62.1%) by stem replacement (Group 2). Surgery time (143 vs. 160 min), hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.5 g/dL) and hospital stance (25.5 vs. 29.6 days) were shorter in Group 1. According to complications, 18.2% of patients in the ORIF group had orthopedic complications compared with 44.4% in the revision group. In the revision group, 3 cases needed a two-stage revision and one of these revisions ended up with a resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone). The first-year mortality rate was 27% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2. DISCUSSION: ORIF treatment seems to be a less aggressive and complex procedure which can lead to a faster general recovery. Revision surgery can imply a higher risk of orthopedic complications which can be severe and may require further aggressive solutions. The ORIF group mortality was similar to the proximal femur fracture rate (20-30%). In conclusion, ORIF treatment seems to be a good option especially in fragile patients with low functional demand when anatomical reduction is possible.