A multicentre comparative analysis of fixation versus revision surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with a cemented polished taper-slip femoral component.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). CONCLUSION: Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124-134.

Comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture torque and strain pattern of three types of femoral components in experimental model.

AIMS: Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems. METHODS: We conducted biomechanical testing of bone analogues using six cemented stems of three different types: collarless polished tapered (CPT) stem, Versys Advocate (Versys) stem, and Charnley-Marcel-Kerboull (CMK) stem. Experienced surgeons implanted each of these types of stems into six bone analogues, and the analogues were compressed and internally rotated until failure. Torque to fracture and fracture type were recorded. We also measured surface strain distribution using triaxial rosettes. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in fracture torque between the three stem types (p = 0.036). Particularly, the median fracture torque for the CPT stem was significantly lower than that for the CMK stem (CPT vs CMK: 164.5 Nm vs 200.5 Nm; p = 0.046). The strain values for the CPT stem were higher than those for the other two stems at the most proximal site. The fracture pattern of the CPT and Versys stems was Vancouver type B, whereas that of the CMK stem was type C. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that the cobalt-chromium alloy material, polished surface finish, acute-square proximal form, and the absence of a collar may be associated with lower fracture torque, which may be related to PPF. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):270-277.

Temporal subsidence patterns of cemented polished taper-slip stems: a systematic review.

The literature was reviewed to establish the levels of stem subsidence for both double and triple-tapered implants in order to determine whether there were any differences in subsidence levels with regard to the methods of measurement, the magnitude and rate of subsidence and clinical outcomes.All studies reporting subsidence of polished taper-slip stems were identified. Patient demographics, implant design, radiological findings, details of surgical technique, methods of measurement and levels of subsidence were collected to investigate which factors were related to increased subsidence.Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 papers of relevance were identified. The studies initially recruited 3090 hips with 2099 being available for radiological analysis at final follow-up. Patient age averaged 68 years (42-70), 60.4% were female and the average body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 kg/m2 (24.1-29.2).Mean subsidence at one, two, five and 10 years was 0.97 mm, 1.07 mm, 1.47 mm and 1.61 mm respectively. Although double-tapered stems subsided more than triple-tapered stems at all time points this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), nor was the method of measurement used (p > 0.05).We report the levels of subsidence at which clinical outcomes and survivorship remain excellent, but based on the literature it was not possible to determine a threshold of subsidence beyond which failure was more likely.There were relatively few studies of triple-tapered stems, but given that there were no statistically significant differences, the levels presented in this review can be applied to both double and triple-tapered designs. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:331-342. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200086.