Periprosthetic fracture in the elderly with anatomic modular cementless hemiarthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The use of an anatomic cementless stem in hemiarthroplasties for femoral intracapsular proximal fracture has been debated, notably because of bone weakness and/or morphological defects related to osteoporosis. We therefore conducted a retrospective study in subjects over 75 years of age who had received an anatomic stem partially coated with hydroxyapatite. The objectives were to determine: 1) the incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) and, 2) the influence of anatomic factors, including the Cortical Bone Ratio (CBR) (the relation between the endosteal and external diameter of the femoral diaphysis 10cm below the lesser trochanter). HYPOTHESIS: The risk of PPF with an anatomic cementless implant is greater than with cemented stems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 233 patients followed up for 5 years after their surgery. The stem used was an anatomic stem with a modular neck partially coated with hydroxyapatite. The risk factors examined were age, gender, history of osteoporotic fractures, diverse causes of secondary osteoporosis, and proximal bone stock according to various referenced radiological indices such as the CBR. RESULTS: Twenty patients (15%) were lost to follow-up, 74 had died (32%) but did not undergo revision for PPF, 15 of the 139 survivors at the last follow-up (10.8%) had had a PPF, five (3.6%; four females, one male) were early fractures (≤2 months after implantation), ten (7.2%; two females, eight males) were late fractures (>2 months). Male gender was protective for PPF occurrence (RR=0.129; 95%CI (0.04-0.39); P=0.0003), whereas secondary factors of osteoporosis (RR=2.035; 95%CI (1.11-3.72); P=0.0211), and CBR>0.49 (RR=227.42; 95%CI (1.072-48,226.76); P=0.0471) were found as risk factors of PPF. DISCUSSION: The PPF rate was greater than that related to cemented stems, requiring that morphological and clinical factors of bone weakness (collected with the patient history and related to osteoporosis) be taken into account. A CBR>0.49 requires caution on the use of this type of stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. Retrospective study.

Surgery in vertebral fracture: epidemiology and functional and radiological results in a prospective series of 518 patients at 1 year's follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Recent epidemiological data for spinal trauma in France are sparse. However, increased knowledge of sagittal balance and the development of minimally invasive techniques have greatly improved surgical management. OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology and management of traumatic vertebral fracture, and to analyze evolution and risk factors for poor functional outcome at 1 year's follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter French cohort study was performed over a 6-month period in 2011, including all cases of vertebral fracture surgery. Data were collected by online questionnaire over the Internet. Demographic characteristics, lesion type and surgical procedures were collected. Clinical, functional and radiological assessment was carried out at 1 year. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighteen patients, with a mean age of 47 years, were included. Sixty-seven percent of fractures involved the thoracic or lumbar segment. Thirty percent of patients had multiple fractures and 28% neurological impairment. A minimally invasive technique was performed in 20% of cases and neurological decompression in 25%. Dural tear was observed in 42 patients (8%). Seventy percent of patients were followed up at 1 year. Functionally, SF-36 scores decreased on all dimensions, significantly associated with age, persistent neurological deficit and previous spine imbalance. Thirty-eight percent of working patients had returned to work. Radiologically, sagittal balance was good in 74% of cases, with fracture consolidation in 70%. DISCUSSION: Despite progress in management, spinal trauma was still a source of significant morbidity in 2011, with pronounced decrease in quality of life. Conserved sagittal balance appeared to be associated with better functional outcome.

Survey of French spine surgeons reveals significant variability in spine trauma practices in 2013.

BACKGROUND: In France, attempts to define common ground during spine surgery meetings have revealed significant variability in clinical practices across different schools of surgery and the two specialities involved in spine surgery, namely, neurosurgery and orthopaedic surgery. OBJECTIVES: To objectively characterise this variability by performing a survey based on a fictitious spine trauma case. Our working hypothesis was that significant variability existed in trauma practices and that this variability was related to a lack of strong scientific evidence in spine trauma care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey based on a clinical vignette describing a 31-year-old male with an L1 burst fracture and neurologic symptoms (numbness). Surgeons received the vignette and a 14-item questionnaire on the management of this patient. For each question, surgeons had to choose among five possible answers. Differences in answers across surgeons were assessed using the Index of Qualitative Variability (IQV), in which 0 indicates no variability and 1 maximal variability. Surgeons also received a questionnaire about their demographics and surgical experience. RESULTS: Of 405 invited spine surgeons, 200 responded to the survey. Five questions had an IQV greater than 0.9, seven an IQV between 0.5 and 0.9, and two an IQV lower than 0.5. Variability was greatest about the need for MRI (IQV=0.93), degree of urgency (IQV=0.93), need for fusion (IQV=0.92), need for post-operative bracing (IQV=0.91), and routine removal of instrumentation (IQV=0.94). Variability was lowest for questions about the need for surgery (IQV=0.42) and use of the posterior approach (IQV=0.36). Answers were influenced by surgeon specialty, age, experience level, and type of centre. CONCLUSION: Clinical practice regarding spine trauma varies widely in France. Little published evidence is available on which to base recommendations that would diminish this variability.