What Are the Mortality, Infection, and Nonunion Rates After Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures are a serious complication that put a high burden on patients. However, comprehensive analyses of their incidence, mortality, and complication rates based on large-registry data are scarce. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this large-database study, we asked: (1) What is the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients 65 years and older in the United States? (2) What are the rates of mortality, infection, and nonunion, and what factors are associated with these outcomes? METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative, large-database study, periprosthetic femoral fractures occurring between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were identified from Medicare physician service records encompassing services rendered in medical offices, clinics, hospitals, emergency departments, skilled nursing facilities, and other healthcare institutions from approximately 2.5 million enrollees. These were grouped into proximal, distal, and shaft fractures after TKA and THA. We calculated the incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures by year. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated by dividing the incidence in 2019 by the incidence in 2010. The Kaplan-Meier method with Fine and Gray subdistribution adaptation was used to calculate the cumulative incidence rates of mortality, infection, and nonunion. Semiparametric Cox regression was applied with 23 measures as covariates to determine factors associated with these outcomes. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures increased steeply (TKA for distal fractures: IRR 3.3 [95% CI 1 to 9]; p = 0.02; THA for proximal fractures: IRR 2.3 [95% CI 1 to 4]; p = 0.01). One-year mortality rates were 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) for distal fractures treated with THA, 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) for proximal fractures treated with THA, 22% (95% CI 19% to 26%) for shaft fractures treated with THA, 21% (95% CI 18% to 25%) for distal fractures treated with TKA , 22% (95% CI 17% to 28%) for proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 24% (95% CI 19% to 29%) for shaft fractures treated with TKA. The 5-year mortality rate was 63% (95% CI 54% to 70%) for distal fractures treated with THA, 57% (95% CI 54% to 62%) for proximal fractures treated with THA, 58% (95% CI 52% to 63%) for shaft fractures treated with THA, 57% (95% CI 52% to 62%) for distal fractures treated with TKA , 57% (95% CI 49% to 65%) for proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 57% (95% CI 49% to 64%) for shaft fractures treated with TKA. Age older than 75 years, male sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.32 to 1.67] after THA and HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.74] after TKA), cerebrovascular disease after THA, chronic kidney disease (HR 1.28 [95% CI 1.12 to 1.46] after THA and HR 1.50 [95% CI 1.24 to 1.82] after TKA), diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis were clinical risk factors for an increased risk of mortality. Within the first 2 years, fracture-related infections occurred in 5% (95% CI 4% to 7%) of patients who had distal fractures treated with THA, 5% [95% CI 5% to 6%]) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with THA, 6% (95% CI 5% to 7%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with THA, 6% (95% CI 5% to 7%) of patients who had distal fractures treated with TKA , 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with TKA. Nonunion or malunion occurred in 3% (95% CI 2% to 4%) of patients with distal fractures treated with THA, 1% (95% CI 1% to 2%) of patients who had proximal fractures treated with THA, 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%) of patients who had shaft fractures treated with THA, 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) of those who had distal fractures treated with TKA, , 2% (95% CI 1% to 4%) of those who had proximal fractures treated with TKA, and 3% (95% CI 2% to 4%) of those who had shaft fractures treated with TKA. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of periprosthetic fractures were observed during the investigated period. At 1 and 5 years after periprosthetic femur fracture, there was a substantial death rate in patients with Medicare. Conditions including cerebrovascular illness, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis are among the risk factors for increased mortality. After the surgical care of periprosthetic femur fractures, the rates of fracture-related infection and nonunion were high, resulting in a serious risk to affected patients. Patient well-being can be enhanced by an interdisciplinary team in geriatric traumatology and should be improved to lower the risk of postoperative death. Additionally, it is important to ensure that surgical measures to prevent fracture-related infections are followed diligently. Furthermore, there is a need to continue improving implants and surgical techniques to avoid often-fatal complications such as fracture-associated infections and nonunion, which should be addressed in further studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The increasing complexity of femoral fragility fractures: incidence, fracture patterns and management over a 10-year period.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there have been changes in the numbers and complexity of femoral fragility fractures presenting to our department over a period of 10 years. METHODS: Patients >60 years presenting with femoral fragility fractures to our institution in 2018-2019 (397 fractures) were compared with respect to demographic data, incidence rates, fracture classification and surgical management with a historical cohort from 2009-2010 (335 fractures). Pathological and high velocity fractures were excluded. RESULTS: The gender proportion and average age (83.1 vs. 82.7 years) was unchanged. The number of femoral fractures increased by 19% but the overall incidence in people >60 years fell by 6% (p = 0.41). The proportion of unstable trochanteric fractures (31A2 and A3) increased from 22% to 55% (p < 0.001). The proportion of displaced intracapsular fractures increased from 53% to 72% (p < 0.001). The incidence of stable trochanteric fractures fell from 12.4 to 7.3/10,000 patients>60 years (p = 0.0006) while the incidence of unstable trochanteric fractures (31A2 and 31A3) increased from 3.5 to 8.9/10,000 patients >60 years (p < 0.0001). The proportion of trochanteric fractures treated with an intramedullary (IM) nail increased from 9% to 35% (p = 0.0001). The number of shaft and distal femoral fractures increased by 41% although the incidence did not change significantly. Periprosthetic fractures comprised 70% of femoral shaft fractures in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing number and complexity of femoral fragility fractures, especially unstable trochanteric fractures and periprosthetic fractures, is likely to have an impact on implant use, theatre time and cost.

Strikingly High Rates of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Revision Surgery for Periprosthetic Fractures Regardless of Surgery Timing.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA) often occur in the early postoperative period. Recent data has indicated that early revisions are associated with higher complication rates, particularly periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of timing of periprosthetic fracture surgery on complication rates. We hypothesized that complication rates would be significantly higher in revision surgeries performed within 3 months of the index THA. METHODS: The Medicare Part A claims database was queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify patients who underwent surgery for a periprosthetic fracture following primary THA. Patients were divided based on time between index and revision surgeries: <1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 9, 9 to 12, and >12 months. Complication rates were compared between groups using multivariate analyses to adjust for demographics, comorbidities, and types of revision surgery. RESULTS: Of 492,340 THAs identified, 4,368 (0.9%) had a subsequent periprosthetic fracture requiring surgery: 1,725 (39.4%) at <1 month, 693 (15.9%) at 1 to 2 months, 202 (4.6%) at 2 to 3 months, 250 (5.7%) at 3 to 6 months, 134 (3.1%) at 6 to 9 months, 85 (19.4%) at 9 to12 months, and 1,279 (29.3%) at >12 months. The risk of PJI was 11.0% in the <1 month group, 11.1% at 1 to 2 months, 7.9% at 2 to 3 months, 6.8% at 3 to 6 months, 8.2% at 6 to 9 months, 9.4% at 9 to 12 months, and 8.5% at >12 months (P = .12). Adjusting for confounding factors, risk of PJI following periprosthetic fracture surgery was similar regardless of timing (P > .05). Rates of subsequent dislocation and aseptic loosening were also similar regardless of timing. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of PJI following repeat surgery for a periprosthetic fracture was strikingly high regardless of timing (6.8 to 11.1%), underscoring the high-risk of complications.

Reducing the Burden of Disease Associated With Periprosthetic Fractures: Prevention and the Need for Improved Perioperative Care.

The management of periprosthetic fractures remains challenging and controversial. There continues to be a significant burden of disease and substantial resource implications associated with fractures following total joint arthroplasty. Achieving consensus opinions regarding the prevention and treatment of this problem has important implications given the profound effect on patient outcomes. Multidisciplinary care in the preoperative and postoperative settings is critical, with a specific focus on bone health.

A cost analysis of treating postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip replacement surgery in a UK tertiary referral centre.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate costs associated with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) treatment at a UK tertiary referral centre. METHODS: This study included 128 consecutive PFFs admitted from 02/04/2014-19/05/2020. Financial data were provided by Patient Level Information and Costing Systems. Primary outcomes were median cost and margin. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, blood transfusion, critical care, 30-day readmission, 2-year local complication, 2-year systemic complication, 2-year reoperation and 30-day mortality rates. Statistical comparisons were made between treatment type. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Across the cohort, median cost was £15,644.00 (IQR £11,031.00-£22,255.00) and median loss was £3757.50 (£599.20-£8296.20). The highest costs were ward stay (£3994.00, IQR £1,765.00-£7,013.00), theatre utilisation (£2962.00, IQR £0.00-£4,286.00) and overheads (£1705.10, IQR £896.70-£2432.20). Cost (£17,455.00 [IQR, £13,194.00-£23,308.00] versus £7697.00 [IQR £3871.00-£10,847.00], p<0.001) and loss (£4890.00 [IQR £1308.00-£10,009.00] versus £1882.00 [IQR £313.00-£3851.00], p = 0.02) were greater in the operative versus the nonoperative group. There was no difference in cost (£17,634.00 [IQR £12,965.00-£22,958.00] versus £17,399.00 [IQR £13,394.00-£23,404.00], p = 0.98) or loss (£5374.00 [IQR £1950.00-£10,143.00] versus £3860.00 [IQR -£95.50-£7601.00], p = 0.21) between the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and revision groups. More patients required blood transfusion in the operative versus the nonoperative group (17 [17.9%] versus 0 [0.0%], p = 0.009). There was no difference in any clinical outcome between the ORIF and revision groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: PFF treatment costs are high with inadequate reimbursement from NHS tariff. Work is needed to address this disparity and reduce hospital costs. Cost should not be used to decide between ORIF and revision surgery.

Epidemiology and characteristics of femoral periprosthetic fractures : data from the characteristics, outcomes and management of periprosthetic fracture service evaluation (COMPOSE) cohort study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe the demographic details of patients who sustain a femoral periprosthetic fracture (PPF), the epidemiology of PPFs, PPF characteristics, and the predictors of PPF types in the UK population. METHODS: This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study including adult patients presenting to hospital with a new PPF between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Data collected included: patient characteristics, comorbidities, anticoagulant use, social circumstances, level of mobility, fracture characteristics, Unified Classification System (UCS) type, and details of the original implant. Descriptive analysis by fracture location was performed, and predictors of PPF type were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 720 femoral PPFs from 27 NHS sites were included. PPF patients were typically elderly (mean 79.9 years (SD 10.6)), female (n = 455; 63.2%), had at least one comorbidity (n = 670; 93.1%), and were reliant on walking aids or bed-/chair-bound prior to admission (n = 419; 61.7%). The study population included 539 (74.9%) hip PPFs, 151 (21.0%) knee PPFs, and 30 (4.2%) dividing type PPFs. For hip (n = 407; 75.5%) and knee (n = 88; 58.3%) arthroplasty UCS B type fractures were most common. Overall, 556 (86.2%) were treated in the presenting hospital and 89 (13.8%) required transfer for treatment. Female sex was the only significant predictor of fracture type (A/B1/C type versus B2/B3) for femoral hip PPFs (odds ratio 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.91); p = 0.014). Sex, residence type, primary versus revision implant PPF, implant fixation, and time between arthroplasty and PPF were not found to predict fracture type for hip PPFs. CONCLUSION: This multicentre analysis describes patient and injury factors for patients presenting with femoral PPFs to centres across the UK. These patients are generally elderly and frail, comparable to those sustaining a hip fracture. These data can be useful in planning future services and clinical trials. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):987-996 .

The Economic Impact of Lower Extremity Periprosthetic Fractures in a Large Hospital System.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) place a burden on hospital systems. They occur in older patients with medical comorbidities, as unplanned events requiring technically complex surgeries with expensive implants. The purpose of this study was to describe this patient population and evaluate the economic impact of PPFs on a hospital system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of PPFs of the hip and knee between 2018 and 2019. Demographics, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition were collected. We performed chart and radiographic reviews to determine the fracture classification and type of treatment performed. An analysis of direct inpatient costs was performed and categorized by a fracture type. RESULTS: We identified 213 periprosthetic hip and 151 periprosthetic knee fractures. The mean age of hip patients was 77 years, and 71% were female. The average surgery time was 194 minutes, LOS was 5.01 days, and 71% were discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). The mean age of knee patients was 76 years, and 79% were female. The average surgery time was 174 minutes, LOS was 5.12 days, and 70% were discharged to a SNF. The median direct cost of hip fractures was $17,108, with Vancouver B2 and B3 costing significantly more at $19,987 and $23,935, respectively (P value <.0001). The median direct cost of knee fractures was $13,713. Type 3 distal femur fractures cost significantly more at $37,445 (P value <.0001). CONCLUSION: PPFs create a significant economic impact on hospital systems. We stratified the costs of treatment based on the fracture type. Significantly higher costs are associated with injuries requiring revision implants.

Assessment of morbidity and mortality after periprosthetic hip fracture. Influence of Vancouver stage in a retrospective single-centre study of 88 patients.

BACKGROUND: Peri-prosthetic hip fractures (PPHFs) are serious complications whose treatment is generally difficult due to their predominance in elderly patients with bone frailty and other comorbidities. The Vancouver classification is the most widely used and is helpful for assisting treatment decisions. However, its value for predicting morbidity and mortality has not been assessed. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess post-operative morbidity and mortality according to the fracture type in the Vancouver classification. HYPOTHESIS: Post-operative morbidity and mortality vary across fracture types in the Vancouver classification. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective study was conducted from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2015. All patients who had surgery for a PPHF were included. There were 88 patients, including 66 (75%) females, and mean age was 82 years. The patients were re-evaluated at least 3 years after surgery. The distribution of the fracture types was as follows: Vancouver (V) A, n=7; VB, n=63 (VB1, n=30; VB2, n=23; and VB3, n=10); and VC, n=18. Data on the pre-operative status (self-sufficiency, comorbidities, ASA score, etc.) were extracted from the admission files. Morbidity and mortality were evaluated globally and according to the Vancouver type, using the patient files and telephone calls to determine self-sufficiency scores (Parker, Katz, and Lawton) and functional scores (Merle d'Aubigné-Postel [MAP] score and Harris Hip Score [HHS]). RESULTS: Post-operative medical complications were very common (33 [37.5%] patients) and correlated with the severity of the fracture. Similarly, the mortality rate at last follow-up varied significantly (p<0.05) with the severity of the fracture, as follows: VA, 28.5%; VB1, 40%; VB2, 47.8%; VC, 55.6%; and VB3, 66.7%). In the overall population, loss of self-sufficiency was 20%, 14%, and 26% according to Parker, Katz, and Lawton, respectively; loss of function was 13.9% and 13.3% according to the MAP score and HHS (p<0.05). All the self-sufficiency scores (Parker, Katz, and Lawton) and functional scores (MAP and HHS) decreased post-operatively in proportion to the severity of the fracture (very small losses for VA and greatest losses for VB3) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The short- and medium-term mortality rates in our cohort of patients with PPHFs were high and chiefly dependent on the severity of the fractures. The self-sufficiency and functional scores were better in the group with VA fractures than in the groups with VB1, VB2, VB3, and VC fractures. In any case, early weight-bearing is without doubt a key factor in limiting the impact of PPHFs on the functional outcome and on mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.

An Assessment of Factors That Influence Outcome Following Fixation of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures Associated with Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic distal femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty (PDFFTKA) are increasingly common [1], mainly in elderly patients with significant co-morbidities [2]. Surgical management usually requires balancing prompt fixation for early mobilization with the need to consider the least physiologically demanding option [3].The aim of this study was to assess predictors of clinical and radiological outcome in patients with PDFFTKA treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients managed for PDFFTKA over the last 21 years in the Trauma & Orthopaedics Department of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (RSH) was carried out. Radiological images, pre- and post-operatively, were assessed for fracture related parameters. Last known functional status was evaluated using the most recent outpatient review letters. After assessment of normality of data, evaluation of predictors of clinical and radiological outcome was made using correlation analyses. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant correlation between age, primary TKA to fracture interval, and length of intact medial cortex vs clinical outcome for the parametric variables evaluated. For non-parametric variables assessed, there was a statistically significant correlation between clinical outcome and evidence of callus formation (Spearman rho value -0.476; p=0.022). In stratifying the patients with poor and good outcome, there was no difference noted in primary TKA to fracture interval, or length of intact medial cortex (mm) between both groups. In terms of the number of comminuted fragments and anterior flange to fracture distance (mm), there was also no difference noted between the poor and good functional groups. CONCLUSIONS: 1. There was no observed correlation in pre-operative patient and fracture related variables with outcome in this population of patients with PDFFTKA. 2. Post-operative evidence of callus formation appears to be directly related to better clinical outcomes.

The clinical and economic burden of proximal femur periprosthetic fractures.

BACKGROUND: The number of hip replacements is constantly and progressively increasing, resulting in an increase in periprosthetic fractures. The main aim of this study is to analyze costs and outcomes of surgical treatment for those fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on periprosthetic proximal femur fracture presented a single-level I trauma center. Medical records were reviewed in terms of demographic data, diagnosis (according to Vancouver classification), type of surgical treatment, hospitalization length and follow-up. Patients were interviewed about number of consultations after discharge, medications and physiotherapy sessions. Clinical outcome was evaluated with WOMAC score at the last follow-up, and patient health status was evaluated with the EQ5D5L score pre-trauma and at the last follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical treatment: reduction and internal fixation alone and revision plus fixation. A further group was also considered: patients underwent a Girdlestone procedure. Global costs for each group were calculated. RESULTS: We initially recruited 117 patients, 17 of them were lost at follow-up. Furthermore, 19 patients (19%) died during the follow-up, and 81 of them were therefore included in the study. Mean follow-up was 26.5 months. Mean postoperative WOMAC score was 39.44, and EQ5D5L score was 9.12 for the preoperative period and 12.35 at the last follow-up. A significant worsening of clinical conditions was found comparing the period before fracture to the last follow-up (p < 0.01). Quality of life after surgery resulted to be poor or fair in 40% of the patients at a mean follow-up of 26.5 months. No significant differences between groups were found according to patients' health status. Mean global costs for mayor surgeries were 18,822 Euros; mean costs for fixation alone were 17,298 Euros while for fixation and revision were 20,966 Euros, but no statistically difference was found between these two groups. Mean cost for Girdlestone group was 12,664 Euros. CONCLUSIONS: In proximal femur periprosthetic fractures, either fixation or revision plus fixation presents high costs but patients' postoperative quality of life is poor.

Direct medical costs of interprosthetic femoral fracture treatment: A cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) represent a challenging clinical problem with a fast-rising incidence. Interprosthetic fractures (IPFs) represent one of its most difficult variants. There is a paucity of data regarding the financial burden of PPFs, and none for IPFs. This study aims to estimate the direct medical cost of the surgical treatment of IPFs in NHS, and analyse the factors influencing this when using different methods of surgical treatment. METHODS: A cohort of patients with IPFs treated in a single academic unit over a period of 8-years with different surgical methods was studied. In-hospital details, as well as outpatient follow-up data, were gathered relevant to their clinical and radiological outcome until discharge. Local and national NHS data were acquired from the financial department, as well as industry-related resources. The economic analysis was structured as a cost identification analysis (CIA) of the overall cohort, but also as a comparative best-case scenario (uncomplicated course till discharge) comparison between the 3 main different management strategies (a) revision arthroplasty (RTHA), b) plate fixation (ORIF), c) combination of implants (COMBO). RESULTS: Data from 28 patients (22 females) with IPFs were analysed with a median age of 78.4 years. The overall direct medical cost of treating this cohort of patients was £468,330, with a median of £15.625 (range £10,128 to 33,060). Comparing the three different surgical modalities, the median cost in groups a, b, and c was £20,793 (range £12,110 to £24,116), £12,979 (range £10,128 to £20,555), and £22,316 (range £10,938 to £23,081) respectively. In all groups, the 2/3 of the identified costs were relevant to the inpatient stay. Transfusions were the highest (3 units of cRBC on average) to the patients that received a revision THA vs the other two groups (p=0.022). There was statistically significant higher mean overall cost between the RTHA and the ORIF groups (£19,453 vs. £14,201, p=0.0242), but not when compared with the COMBO cases (£19,453 vs. £18,788, p=0.86). CONCLUSION: The first cost identification study and "best case scenario" comparative analysis for IPFs demonstrated a significant overall direct medical cost, when managing these complex fractures with variable contemporary techniques. Evidence based reimbursement strategies should be developed to allow the sustainability of the clinical service we offer in this challenging patient population.

Computer Navigation vs Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Medicare Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is applied to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in an attempt to optimize implant positioning. The effect of CAS on postoperative complications after THA remains unknown. Our study aims to assess the change in complication rates when CAS is used in THA. METHODS: The Medicare database was studied from 2005 to 2012. All THAs performed with CAS were identified. A total of 64,944 THAs were identified, including 5412 CAS-THAs and 59,532 conventional THAs. Medical and surgical adverse events were collected at various time points. RESULTS: CAS-THA was not associated with a decreased rate of dislocation at 30 days (1.0% vs 1.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.14; P = .310), 90 days (1.1% vs 1.4%; OR, 1.23; P = .090), or 2 years (2.3% vs 2.3%; OR, 1.01; P = .931). CAS-THA was associated with a significantly higher rate of periprosthetic fracture at 30 days (0.4% vs 0.6%; OR, 1.46; P = .040) as well as revision THA at 30 days (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 1.43; P = .003) and 90 days (1.2% vs 1.7%; OR, 1.42; P < .002) when compared to conventional THA. CAS-THA was associated with a significantly lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism when compared to conventional THA at all time points (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Administrative coding data fail to demonstrate any clinically significant reduction in short-term adverse events with CAS-THA. Further study is warranted to evaluate whether the purported benefits of CAS result in a reduction of the adverse events after THA.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Fracture: More Expensive, More Complications, Same Diagnosis-Related Groups: A Local and National Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (revision THA) occurs for a wide variety of indications and in the United States it is coded under Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) 466, 467, and 468, which do not account for revision etiology, a potentially substantial driver of cost. This study investigates revision THA costs and 30-day complications by indication, both locally and nationally. METHODS: Hospitalization costs and complication rates for 1,422 aseptic revision THAs performed at a high-volume center between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Additionally, charges for 28,133 revision THAs in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were converted to costs using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project cost-to-charge ratios, and 30-day complication rates for 3,224 revision THAs were obtained with use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Costs and complications were compared between revision THAs performed for fracture, wear/loosening, and dislocation/instability with use of simultaneous and pairwise comparisons and a multivariable model accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, age, and sex. RESULTS: Local hospitalization costs for fracture (median, $25,672) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening ($20,228; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability ($17,911; p < 0.001), with differences remaining significant even after adjusting for patient comorbidities (p < 0.001). NIS costs for fracture (median, $27,596) were higher than those for other aseptic indications (wear/loosening: $21,176, p < 0.001; dislocation/instability: $16,891, p< 0.001). Local 30-day orthopaedic complication rates for fracture (20.7%) were higher those than for dislocation/instability (9.0%; p = 0.007) and similar to those for wear/loosening (17.6%; p = 0.434). Nationally, combined medical and surgical complication rates for fracture (71.3% of patients with ≥1 complication) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening (35.2%; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability (35.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization costs for revision THA for fracture were 33% to 48% higher than for all other aseptic revision THAs, both locally and nationally. This increased cost persisted even after multivariable comorbidity adjustment, the current DRG basis for stratifying revision THA reimbursement. Additionally, 30-day complication rates suggest that increased resource utilization for fracture patients continues even after discharge. Indication-specific coding and reimbursement systems are necessary to maintain sustainable access to revision THA for all patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Computed tomography for managing periprosthetic femoral fractures. A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) present a common cause for revision surgery after arthroplasty. The choice of performing either an osteosynthesis or revision arthroplasty depends on the orthopedic implant anchored and loosening. Standard diagnostics include x-ray imaging. CT is usually performed to confirm implant loosening in case of ambiguous diagnosis on standard x-ray imaging. This study aimed to examine the role of CT as a diagnostic modality and its implications for treatment planning and outcome. METHODS: Patients treated for PPF from January 2010 to February 2018 were included. X-ray and CT reports were analyzed to assess implant loosening. The planning for surgery and the final surgical treatment were evaluated. In addition, patient characteristics were analyzed and compared between patients with and without additional CT as a preoperative diagnostic procedure. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were eligible for the study. X-ray imaging was performed in 90.7% of cases. CT was performed in 60% of the cases as part of the preoperative diagnostic. A clear statement on implant stability or loosening could not be made in 69.1% after X-ray imaging and in 84.4% following CT imaging. Revision arthroplasty for loosened femoral prosthesis components was necessary in 40% of cases. No difference could be determined comparing patients with X-ray imaging to those with X-ray and additional CT. In both groups, operative treatment did not deviate from the preoperative planning. DISCUSSION: In two thirds of the conventional radiographic findings, no reliable evaluation of implant loosening was possible in femoral PPFs. Intriguingly, additional CT did not improve the evaluation of implant loosening. Nonetheless, CT scans are often performed if loosening assessment is unclear on regular radiographs. This fact can explain the bias CT results in comparison to regular radiography. However, software-supported CT diagnosis could help to adequately answer the question of loosened implants in PPF in the near future. Since the diagnosis of fracture and their morphology assessment is currently adequately performed using X-rays, CT shall not be considered as the gold standard.

Causes of Total Knee Revision in Emerging Economies: Is It Different from the Western World?

There is limited information in English literature regarding the cause of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in emerging economies. The purpose of this study is to report a detailed analysis of the TKA failure mechanisms from a referral hospital in India and to determine whether the failure mechanisms of primary TKA are different from that of the western world. A total of 53 revision TKAs performed at our institution over the past 5 years were identified. The revision TKA group was divided into subgroups according to the cause of failure, including infection, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, instability, extensor mechanism failure, and other causes. All revision TKA patients were subdivided into early (less than 2 years from primary) and late (more than 2 years from primary) failure groups depending upon the time interval between primary TKA and revision procedure. The overall common failure mechanisms were infection (73.58%), aseptic loosening (13.2%), and periprosthetic fracture (5.6%). Infection was the most common failure mechanism for early revision (< 2 years from primary) and aseptic loosening was the most common reason for late revision. Our study shows a pattern similar to the earliest trends of revision TKA in western literature reporting infection as the major cause for revision. The level of evidence for the study is Level 3.

Outcomes of Surgical Management of Supracondylar Periprosthetic Femur Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fracture location is an important consideration in managing supracondylar periprosthetic femur fractures. The outcomes of locked plating and intramedullary (IM) nail fixation were therefore compared based on fracture location, being above or at/below the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) flange. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients were identified from surgical records as being treated for supracondylar periprosthetic femur fracture with either a locking plate (n = 38) or IM nail (n = 19). Based on fracture location, either above or at/below the TKA flange, both groups were assessed for time to full weight bearing, time to radiographic union, number of postoperative complications, subsequent surgery, transfusion requirements, as well as range of motion, pain, and instability at most recent follow-up. Radiographs were reviewed to assess fracture alignment with comparisons made immediately postoperative to most recent. RESULTS: Mean follow-up for IM nail and locking plate fixation was 13.9 and 15.6 months, respectively. There was no statistical difference between groups in the mean time to fully weight bear, the incidence of postoperative pain, range of motion, use of gait aids, time to full radiographic union, or the overall radiographic alignment of a healed fracture (P > .05). Comparison based on fracture location yielded similar outcomes. Nonunion was only demonstrated in the IM nail cohort, particularly for fractures below the TKA flange (n = 2). CONCLUSION: The use of either IM nail or locking plate fixation for supracondylar periprosthetic fractures provides comparable clinical outcomes. Caution is recommended in using IM nails for fractures below the flange where limited fixation may increase the risk of nonunion.

The economic impact of surgically treated peri-prosthetic hip fractures on a university teaching hospital in Wales 7.5-year study.

The number of total hip replacements taking place across the UK continues to grow. In an ageing population, with people placing greater demands on their prostheses, the number of peri-prosthetic fractures is increasing. We studied the economic impact this has on a large teaching hospital. All patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fracture in a 7.5 year period were identified. Radiographic and case note analysis was performed. Costings from the finance departments were obtained. 90 cases were identified, 58 female and 32 male, with a mean age of 76 (range: 38-91). 89 of the cases were managed surgically, 66% undergoing revision and 33% receiving open reduction and internal fixation. According to the Vancouver Classification, 3% were Type A, 79% Type B and 18% Type C. The mean length of stay was 43 days. The mean cost of management was £31,370 (range: £6885-£112,327). Patients with type C fractures had the highest mean length of stay at 53 days and mean cost of £33,417. Including rehabilitation costs, our study illustrated a mean cost of £31,370, roughly four times the current basic NHS tariff of £8552. Although implant costs are greater, treatment with revision where appropriate allows earlier weight bearing, reduced length of stay and lower overall cost.

Constrained acetabular liners in hip revision surgery. A low-cost solution for senile patients.

The objective of this study was to analyze the results of a cemented polyethylene model that captures the hip prosthetic head. In a retrospective study we reviewed 36 cemented constrained acetabular liners implanted in patients older than 75 years (mean 83, SD : 4.4), of which 30 patients were aged 80-90 years and 26 were women. The average period of follow-up of our patients was 25.4 months (12-39 months, SD : 7.3). In 26 patients this model was implanted due to recurrent dislocation or instability, in 8 other cases this model was implanted during revision surgery for periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening of the -acetabular component, wear of the polyethylene or replacement of the implant because of infection. There was a single case of recurrent dislocation (2.8%). Cemented acetabular constrained liners are a good option in revision surgery in senile patients in which the femoral stem is firmly fixed to the bone.

Periprosthetic humeral fractures associated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: incidence and management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to record the incidence and management of periprosthetic humeral fractures (PHF) using reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 203 RTSA implanted in 200 patients between 2003 and 2014. The mean follow-up was 78.82 months (range, 12-141). Mean age of the study cohort was 75.87 years (range, 44-88). There were only 25 male patients (12.5 %). We assessed the presence of periprosthetic humeral fractures studying the medical files and X-rays of all patients. RESULTS: We identified seven periprosthetic humeral fractures in 203 RTSA (3.4 %): three intra-operative (1.47 %) and four post-operative (1.97 %). The average age at the time of the fracture was 75.14 years (59-83). All patients were women (100 %). Three patients with post-operative fractures type B were treated by osteosynthesis, and one patient with post-operative fracture type A was treated conservatively. All intra-operative fractures needed cerclage wire and in one case long cemented stem. All our periprosthetic fractures healed. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment with osteosynthesis in type B post-operative fractures with a stable stem is recommended. Conservative treatment is sufficient in non-displaced type A post-operative fracture. Special attention should be paid to bone quality patients using non-cemented stems in primary surgery but especially in revision shoulder surgery.

Interposition sleeve as treatment option for interprosthetic fractures of the femur: a biomechanical in vitro assessment.

PURPOSE: The number of patients having hip and knee arthroplasties on the ipsilateral leg is going to rise. In this regard, the prevalence of interprosthetic femoral fractures is going to increase further. The treatment of these fractures is difficult and sometimes it is impossible to perform an osteosynthesis because of worse bone quality. The goal of this study was to investigate the use of an interposition sleeve as an alternative treatment option for interprosthetic fractures with major bone loss. METHODS: Six human cadaveric femurs were instrumented using cemented hip- and knee prosthesis. Interprosthetic fractures were induced during a four-point-bending test and then treated using the interposition sleeve. Afterwards the constructs were tested using the four-point-bending test again. RESULTS: Load-to-failure of the construct before fracturing was significantly higher than after treatment with the interposition sleeve (10681 N vs. 5083 N; p = 0.002). The failure mechanism of the femurs with the interposition sleeve was plastic deformation of the hip or knee prosthesis. The interposition sleeve did not fail in any specimen. CONCLUSION: The interposition sleeve is a valuable treatment option for interprosthetic fractures in situations in which osteosynthesis is impossible or insecure due to major bone defects. However, fracture healing should be preferred whenever possible.