Clinical differences between periprosthetic and native distal femur fractures: a comparative observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF) is increasing as the number of total knee replacements becomes more common. This study compared the demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of periprosthetic versus native distal femur fractures (NDFF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥ 18 who underwent surgical fixation of NDFF or PDFF from 2012 to 2020 at a level-1 trauma center. The main variables collected included demographics, AO/OTA fracture classification, fixation construct, concomitant fractures, polytrauma rates, bone density, and reduction quality. Primary outcomes were unexpected return to the operating room (UROR), hospital length of stay, and quality of reduction. T-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate analyses were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 209 patients were identified, including 70 PDFF and 139 NDFF. PDFF patients were elderly females (81%) with isolated (80%) and comminuted (85%) 33 A.3 (71%) fractures. NDFF patients included 53% females, were commonly middle-aged, and displayed comminuted (92%) 33 C.2 fractures. 48% of NDFF patients had concomitant fractures. Intramedullary nailing was the primary fixation for both groups, followed by nail-plate combination (37%) for PDFF and lateral locking plates (21%) for NDFF. NDFF patients experienced significantly longer hospital stays, higher UROR rates, and worse quality of reduction (p < 0.05). PDFF patients had a significantly greater prevalence of low bone density (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PDFF occur as isolated injuries with significant metaphyseal comminution in elderly females with low bone quality. NDFF commonly occurs in younger patients with less metaphyseal comminution and concomitant fractures. Intramedullary nailing was the most common treatment for both groups, although preference for nail-plate combination fixation is increasing. NDFF type 33 C fractures are at greater risk of UROR.

Small design modifications can improve the primary stability of a fully coated tapered wedge hip stem.

Increasing the stem size during surgery is associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures in cementless total hip arthroplasty with fully coated tapered wedge stems, especially in femurs of Dorr type A. If in contrast a stem is implanted and sufficient primary stability is not achieved, such preventing successful osseointegration due to increased micromotions, it may also fail, especially if the stem is undersized. Stem loosening or periprosthetic fractures due to stem subsidence can be the consequence. The adaptation of an established stem design to femurs of Dorr type A by design modifications, which increase the stem width proximally combined with a smaller stem tip and an overall shorter stem, might reduce the risk of distal locking of a proximally inadequately fixed stem and provide increased stability. The aim of this study was to investigate whether such a modified stem design provides improved primary stability without increasing the periprosthetic fracture risk compared to the established stem design. The established (Corail, DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, US) and modified stem designs (Emphasys, DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, US) were implanted in cadaveric femur pairs (n = 6 pairs) using the respective instruments. Broaching and implantation forces were recorded and the contact areas between the prepared cavity and the stem determined. Implanted stems were subjected to two different cyclic loading conditions according to ISO 7206-4 using a material testing machine (1 Hz, 600 cycles @ 80 to 800 N, 600 cycles @ 80 to 1600 N). Translational and rotational relative motions between stem and femur were recorded using digital image correlation. Broaching and implantation forces for the modified stem were up to 40% higher (p = 0.024), achieving a 23% larger contact area between stem and bone (R2 = 0.694, p = 0.039) resulting in a four times lower subsidence during loading (p = 0.028). The slight design modifications showed the desired effect in this in-vitro study resulting in a higher primary stability suggesting a reduced risk of loosening. The higher forces required during the preparation of the cavity with the new broaches and during implantation of the stem could bare an increased risk for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures, which did not occur in this study.

Experimental periprosthetic fractures with collarless polished tapered cemented stems.

PURPOSE: After cemented total hip arthroplasty, the risk of periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of taper-slip stems is higher than that of composite-beam stems. We aimed to assess the conditions resulting in PPFs of taper-slip stems using a falling weight. METHODS: Taper-slip stems were fixed to five types of simulated bone models using bone cement, and the fractures were evaluated by dropping stainless-steel weights from a predetermined height onto the heads. The periprosthetic fracture height in 50% of the bone models (PPFH50) was calculated using the staircase method. RESULTS: For the fixation with 0° of flexion, the values for PPFH50 were 61 ± 11, 60 ± 13, above 110, 108 ± 49, and 78 ± 12 cm for the cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, stainless steel alloy (SUS), titanium alloy (Ti), smooth surface, and thick cement mantle models, respectively; for the fixation with 10° of flexion (considering flexure), the PPFH50 values were 77 ± 5, 85 ± 9, 90 ± 2, 89 ± 5, and 81 ± 11 cm, respectively. The fracture rates of the polished-surface stems were 78.6 and 35.7% at the proximal and distal sites, respectively (p < 0.05); the fracture rates of the smooth-surface stems were 14.2 and 100%, respectively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The impact tests demonstrated that the conditions that were less likely to cause PPFs were use of Ti, a smooth surface, a thick cement mantle, and probably, use of SUS.

Does Size Really Matter? Incidence of Periprosthetic Fractures After Femoral Osteotomy in Patients With Cerebral Palsy.

OBJECTIVE: Of children, 30% to 35% with cerebral palsy (CP) develop hip subluxation or dislocation and often require reconstructive hip surgery, including varus derotation osteotomy (VDRO). A recent literature review identified postoperative fractures as the most common complication (9.4%) of VDROs. This study aimed to assess risk factors for periprosthetic fracture after VDRO in children with CP. METHODS: A total of 347 patients (644 hips, 526 bilateral hips) with CP and hip subluxation or dislocation (129 females; mean age at index VDRO: 8.6 y, SD 3.4, range: 1.5 to 17.7; 2 Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) I, 35 GMFCS II, 39 GMFCS III, 119 GMFCS IV, 133 GMFCS V, 21 unavailable) were included in this retrospective, single-group intervention (VDRO) study at a tertiary referral center. Imaging and clinical documentation for patients age 18 years or younger at index surgery, treated with VDRO were reviewed to determine demographic data, GMFCS level, surgeon, type of hardware implanted, use of anticonvulsants and steroids, type of postoperative immobilization, presence of periprosthetic fractures, fracture location and mechanism, and time from surgery to fracture. Potential determinants of periprosthetic fractures were assessed using mixed effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 644 hips, 14 (2.2%, 95% CI: 1.3%, 3.6%) sustained a periprosthetic fracture, at a median of 2.1 years postoperatively (interquartile range: 4.6 y, range: 1.2 mo to 7.8 y). Patients with a fracture had a median age at index surgery of 7.3 years (interquartile range: 4.3, range: 2.8 to 17.8; 1 GMFCS II, 6 GMFCS IV, 7 GMFCS V). Periprosthetic fractures were not significantly related to age at index surgery ( P = 0.18), sex ( P = 0.30), body mass index percentile ( P = 0.87), surgery side ( P = 0.16), anticonvulsant use ( P = 0.35), type of postoperative immobilization ( P = 0.40), GMFCS level ( P = 0.31), or blade plate size ( P = 0.17). Only surgeon volume significantly related to periprosthetic fracture (odds ratio = 5.03, 95% CI: 1.53, 16.56, P = 0.008), with the highest-volume surgeon also using smaller blade plates ( P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic fractures after VDRO surgery in children with CP are uncommon, and routine hardware removal appears unnecessary. The data suggest that the common dogma of putting in the largest blade plate possible to maximize fixation may increase the risk of periprosthetic fracture. Due to the overall low fracture rate, especially when contextualized relative to the risk of hardware removal, a reactive approach to hardware removal appears warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective study (targeting varus derotational osteotomies in children with cerebral palsy).

Reoperation risk of periprosthetic fracture after primary total hip arthroplasty using a collared cementless or a taper-slip cemented stem.

Aims: The aim of this study was to determine both the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for, postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with either a collared cementless (CC) femoral component or a cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) femoral component. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All POPFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems. Results: A total of 11,018 THAs were implanted: 4,952 CC femoral components and 6,066 cemented PTS femoral components. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ. Overall, 91 patients (0.8%) sustained a POPFF. For all patients with a POPFF, 16.5% (15/91) were managed conservatively, 67.0% (61/91) underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 16.5% (15/91) underwent revision. The CC group had a lower POPFF rate compared to the PTS group (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.345). Fewer POPFFs in the CC group required surgery (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). Fewer POPFFs required surgery in males with a CC than males with a PTS (0.3% (7/2,121) vs 1.3% (36/2,674); p < 0.001). Conclusion: Male patients with a PTS femoral component were five times more likely to have a reoperation for POPFF. Female patients had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type. Of those having a reoperation, 80.3% (61/76) had an ORIF, which could greatly mask the size of this problem in many registries.

Optimizing periprosthetic fracture management and in-hospital outcome: insights from the PIPPAS multicentric study of 1387 cases in Spain.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of all periprosthetic fractures (PPF), which require complex surgical treatment associated with high morbidity and mortality, is predicted to increase. The evolving surgical management has created a knowledge gap regarding its impact on immediate outcomes. This study aimed to describe current management strategies for PPF and their repercussions for in-hospital outcomes as well as to evaluate their implications for the community. METHODS: PIPPAS (Peri-Implant PeriProsthetic Survival Analysis) was a prospective multicentre observational study of 1387 PPF performed during 2021. Descriptive statistics summarized the epidemiology, fracture characteristics, management, and immediate outcomes. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was employed to evaluate potential predictors of in-hospital mortality, complications, discharge status, and weight-bearing restrictions. RESULTS: The study encompassed 32 (2.3%) shoulder, 4 (0.3%) elbow, 751 (54.1%) hip, 590 (42.5%) knee, and 10 (0.7%) ankle PPF. Patients were older (median 84 years, IQR 77-89), frail [median clinical frailty scale (CFS) 5, IQR 3-6], presented at least one comorbidity [median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) 5, IQR 4-7], were community dwelling (81.8%), and had outdoor ambulation ability (65.6%). Femoral knee PPF were most frequently associated with uncemented femoral components, while femoral hip PPF occurred equally in cemented and uncemented stems. Patients were managed surgically (82%), with co-management (73.9%), through open approaches (85.9%) after almost 4 days (IQR, 51.9-153.6 h), with prosthesis revision performed in 33.8% of femoral hip PPF and 6.5% of femoral knee PPF. For half of the patients, the discharge instructions mandated weight-bearing restrictions. In-hospital mortality rates were 5.2% for all PPF and 6.2% for femoral hip PPF. Frailty, age > 84 years, mild cognitive impairment, CFS > 3, CCI > 3, and non-geriatric involvement were candidate predictors for in-hospital mortality, medical complications, and discharge to a nursing care facility. Management involving revision arthroplasty by experienced surgeons favoured full weight-bearing, while an open surgical approach favoured weight-bearing restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Current arthroplasty fixation check and revision rates deviate from established guidelines, yet full weight-bearing is favoured. A surgical delay of over 100 h and a lack of geriatric co-management were related to in-hospital mortality and medical complications. This study recommends judicious hypoaggressive approaches. Addressing complications and individualizing the surgical strategy can lead to enhanced functional outcomes, alleviating the economic and social burdens upon hospital discharge. Level of Evidence Level IV case series. TRIAL REGISTRATION: registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04663893), protocol ID: PI 20-2041.

Age as a Risk Factor for Intraoperative Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Cementless Hip Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background: Understanding the risk factors and outcomes of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IPFF) during hip arthroplasty is crucial for appropriate perioperative management. Previous studies have identified risk factors for IPFF in total hip arthroplasty patients, but data for hip hemiarthroplasty (HA) is lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the age associated with increased rates of IPFF in patients undergoing HA. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients aged 65 years and above who underwent a cementless HA for a displaced femoral neck fracture and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into five age groups (65-79, 80-84, 85-89, 90-94, and ≥ 95 years) and further divided into two subgroups (under 95 years and 95 years or older). The presence, location, and treatment of IPFF, as well as the effect of IPFF on the postoperative weight-bearing status, were compared between groups. A multivariate logistic regression was also performed. A total of 1,669 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Results: The rates of IPFF were significantly higher for patients 95 years or older (p = 0.030). However, fracture location (greater trochanter fractures, p = 0.839; calcar fractures, p = 0.394; and femoral shaft fractures p = 0.110), intraoperative treatment (p = 0.424), and postoperative weight-bearing status (p = 0.229) were similar between the groups. While mortality and nonorthopedic-related readmissions were significantly higher for patients 95 years or older, orthopedic-related readmissions (p = 0.148) and revisions at the latest follow-up (p = 0.253) were comparable between groups. In a regression analysis, age over 95 years (odds ratio, 2.049; p = 0.049) and body mass index (odds ratio, 0.935; p = 0.016) were independently associated with IPFF. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that age over 95 years is a significant, independent risk factor for IPFF in patients undergoing cementless HA. Although we were unable to show an impact on perioperative outcomes and orthopedic complications, when operating on patients 95 years or older, surgeons should be aware of the increased risk of IPFF and consider the use of stem designs and fixation types associated with decreased IPFF rates.

Undersizing of the tibial component in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) increases the risk of periprosthetic fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Tibial periprosthetic fractures (TPF) after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are a rare condition that affects about 1% of cases. Known risk factors include age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and bone density, as well as surgical technique and prosthesis design. The purpose of the study was to determine if undersizing of the tibial component in relation to the femoral component increases the risk of tibial periprosthetic fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 6-year-period 1542 patients with cemented (n = 363) and uncemented (n = 1179) medial UKA were retrospectively evaluated. Tibial periprosthetic fractures were identified and classified, and epidemiologic data were documented at follow-up. Undersizing was defined as a smaller tibial component compared to the femoral implant. The association of potential risk factors for TPF with the incidence of TPF was investigated with binominal logistic regression. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (0.9%) suffered from TPF at a median of 1 month after surgery. The mean follow-up period was 5.9 ± 1.7 years. Fractures were more common in cases with undersized tibial components [odds ratio (OR) 3.2, p < 0.05]. Furthermore, older age (OR 1.1, p < 0.05) and female sex (OR 6.5, p < 0.05) were identified as significant risk factors, while BMI (p = 0.8) and cemented implantation (p = 0.2) had no effect on fracture rate. Revision surgery included open reduction and internal fixation or conversion to total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Undersizing of implant sizes in UKA increases the risk for TPF especially in patients with small tibial implants. Therefore, mismatched implants should be avoided for UKA particularly when risk factors like obesity, older age, or female gender are present. Tibial periprosthetic fractures were successfully treated by open reduction and internal fixation or conversion to total knee arthroplasty.

Aseptic Acetabular Revisions ≤90 Days, 91 Days to 2 Years, and >2 Years After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparing Etiologies, Complications, and Postoperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Isolated acetabular component revision is an effective treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty patients who have well-fixed femoral implants. We aimed to evaluate the modes of acetabular failure following primary total hip arthroplasty and to identify factors associated with increased morbidities and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 318 isolated aseptic acetabular revisions. We separated patients by ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years for acetabular revisions and compared demographics, reasons for revision, 90-day readmissions, rerevisions, and postrevision infections. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years accounted for 10.7, 19.2, and 70.1% of revisions, respectively. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years had their primary total hip arthroplasty at a mean age of 66, 63, and 55 years (P < .001), respectively. RESULTS: Revisions within 90 days were mainly indicated for dislocation/instability (58.8%) or periprosthetic fracture (23.5%) while revisions over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (37.2%). Patients with revisions past 90 days were more likely to require rerevision compared to patients with revisions within 90 days (P < .001). There were no differences in readmissions (P = .28) or infection rates (P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular revisions within 90 days were more commonly indicated for instability and periprosthetic fracture, while those over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear. Revisions past 90 days were more likely to require subsequent rerevisions without increased 90-day readmissions or infections. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study.

Incidence and outcomes of intraoperative periprosthetic acetabular fractures during cementless total hip arthroplasty: a prospective three-dimensional computer tomography-based study.

PURPOSE: Unlike periprosthetic femoral fractures, periprosthetic acetabular fractures during total hip arthroplasty (THA) have not been evaluated in detail. We prospectively evaluated the incidence, patterns, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of intraoperative periprosthetic acetabular fractures using pre- and postoperative computer tomography (CT). METHODS: In this prospective single-centre study, we evaluated 234 consecutive patients (250 hips) who underwent THA and three-dimensional CT before and after the surgery. We assessed the incidence, pattern of fractures, outcomes for each fracture pattern, reoperation and revision rates, Harris hip score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Multivariate regression models were used to identify risk factors for periprosthetic acetabular fractures. RESULTS: In total, 43 periprosthetic acetabular fractures (17.2%) were identified via CT. Fractures occurred most frequently at the superolateral wall. Early cup migration occurred in three hips. None of the patients underwent revision surgery for acetabular loosening. Regression modeling showed that rheumatoid arthritis was a significant predictor of periprosthetic acetabular fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are not infrequent during cementless THA and are more common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Incidences and Outcomes of Operatively Treated Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures Compared to Vancouver Type C and Rorabeck Type II Fractures.

BACKGROUND: This case-control study evaluated the incidences and outcomes of interprosthetic femoral fracture (IPFF) (Group I) and performed comparisons with Vancouver type C (Group II) and Rorabeck type II (Group III) periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) occurring at similar anatomic sites. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for all patients who had a previously implanted total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), who lived in the hospital district and had undergone surgery due to PPFF. A total of 153 PPFFs [Group I (n = 31), Group II (n = 21), and Group III (n = 108)] were included. The annual incidences of PPFFs were summarized per 100,000 individuals. The risks of complications, reoperations, and mortalities were evaluated for all groups. RESULTS: The mean population-based annual incidence was 0.9 per 100,000 person years for Group I, 0.7 per 100,000 person years for Group II, and 3.1 per 100,000 person years for Group III. A total of 25 of 153 (16%) major complications were found and 23 of 153 (13%) cases resulted in a revision surgery. The cumulative incidence of death in Group I was 50.4% at 10 years, in Group II it was 63.8% at 10 years, and in Group III it was 74.9% at 10 years. CONCLUSION: The annual incidence of the IPFF almost doubled while the incidence of Vancouver type C stayed stable and Rorabeck type II incidence increased 5-fold. Most of the major complications occurred in IPFF group, while Rorabeck type II patients had the worst survival.

Increased Rates of Late Periprosthetic Fractures in Larger Hydroxyapatite-Coated Cementless Stems: Are Collared Stems a Better Alternative for Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Cementless hip stems are widely used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and have demonstrated excellent survivorship. This study aimed to investigate the effects of stem size and calcar collars on rates of revision due to periprosthetic fracture. METHODS: All primary THA procedures recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from September 1999 to December 2021 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using a single cementless hip stem with modern bearings were included. The primary outcome measure was revision due to periprosthetic fracture. Stems were divided into 2 groups for comparison, large (size 14 to 20) and small-medium (6 to 13). A subanalysis was performed for collared stems. A total of 59,518 primary THA procedures were included. RESULTS: The cumulative percent revision for periprosthetic fracture was significantly higher for large stems compared to small-medium stems (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.57 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.18, 2.09] P = .002). Furthermore, collared stems had significantly lower revision rates due to late periprosthetic fracture compared to collarless variants (2 week + HR = 4.55 [95% CI 3.23, 6.42], P < .001). Large collarless stems were found to have greater revision rates due to fracture compared to small-medium collarless stems (HR = 1.55 [95% CI 1.13, 2.12] P = .006), but no difference was found between collared groups (HR = 1.37 [95% CI 0.68, 2.78] P = .382). CONCLUSION: Large cementless hip stems have a higher rate of revision due to periprosthetic fracture compared to small-medium stems. Using a collared stem reduces the rate of periprosthetic fracture.

Bisphosphonate Use May be Associated With an Increased Risk of Periprosthetic Hip Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is common among patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of bisphosphonate treatment on osteoporotic patients undergoing primary THA. METHODS: Using a national database, 30,137 patients who had osteoporosis before primary elective THA were identified during 2010 to 2020. Patients undergoing nonelective THA and those using corticosteroids or other medications for osteoporosis were excluded. Bisphosphonate users and bisphosphonate naïve patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index, and a history of obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, tobacco use, and alcohol abuse. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate analyses were used to compare 2-year outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Among matched cohorts of 9,844 patients undergoing primary THA, bisphosphonate use was associated with a significantly higher 2-year rate of periprosthetic fracture (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.61, P = .022). There was a trend toward increased risk of any revision with bisphosphonate use (odds ratio 1.19, confidence interval 1.00 to 1.41, P = .056). Rates of infection, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and mortality were not statistically different between bisphosphonate users and bisphosphonate-naïve patients. CONCLUSION: In osteoporotic patients, bisphosphonate use before primary THA is an independent risk factor for periprosthetic fracture. Additional longer-term data are needed to determine the underlying mechanism for this association and identify preventative measures.

Fewer native and periprosthetic femoral fracture patients receive an orthogeriatric review and expedited surgery compared to hip fracture patients.

INTRODUCTION: Disproportionate emphasis has been attributed to hip fracture over other femoral fractures through implementation of Best Practice Tariff (BPT).This retrospective comparative observational cohort study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of native and periprosthetic femoral fractures and establish any disparities in their management relative to hip fractures. METHODS: All patients ⩾60 years admitted with a native or periprosthetic femoral fracture during July 2016-June 2018 were identified using our hospital database. Results were compared to National Hip Fracture Database data over the same period. RESULTS: 58 native femoral, 87 periprosthetic and 1032 hip fractures were identified. (46/58) 79% and 76/87 (89%) of native and periprosthetic femoral fractures were managed operatively. Surgery was performed <36 hours for 34/46 (74%) of native femoral and 33/76 (43%) of periprosthetic fractures compared to 826/1032 (80%) for hips. Median time to surgery was longer in periprosthetic femoral than hip fracture patients (44.7 vs. 21.6 hours; p < 0.0001). Orthogeriatrician review occurred in 24/58 (41%) and 48/87 (55%) of native and periprosthetic fractures compared to 1017/1032 (99%) for hips (p < 0.0001). One year mortality was 35%, 20% and 26% for native femoral, periprosthetic and hip fracture patients. Cox proportional hazard ratio was higher for native femoral than hip fracture patients (1.75; 95% CI, 1.12-2.73). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates large disparities in management of other femoral and periprosthetic fractures compared to hip fractures, specifically time to surgery and orthogeriatrician review. This may have resulted in the comparatively higher mortality rate of native femoral fracture patients. Expansion of the BPT to include the whole femur is likely to improve outcomes.

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.

How Much Protection Does a Collar Provide? Assessing Risk of Early Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) account for approximately 25% of early revisions following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Cemented femoral fixation is associated with a lower-risk of PPF, and collared-cementless stems may reduce the risk as well. The objective of this study was to compare early-PPF rates between cemented, collared-cementless, and non-collared cementless stems in elderly patients. METHODS: A consecutieve-series of 11,522 primary THAs performed between 2016 and 2021 at our institution in patients >65 years of age was identified. Stem types used were categorized as cemented, collared-cementless, or non-collared cementless. Patients undergoing THA who had cemented-stems were older, more commonly women, and more likely to have a posterior-approach. To reduce confounding of patient characteristics, we matched patients in the 3 stem-categories according to age, sex, and body mass index. This generated 3-groups (cemented, collared-cementless, and non-collared cementless) consisting of 936 patients per group. The mean age of these 2,808 patients was 73 years, the mean body mass index was 27, and 67% were women. Logistic regressions were used to evaluate risk-factors for early-PPF. In the entire cohort of primary THA in elderly patients, there were 85 early PPFs (0.7%) over the study period. RESULTS: Non-collared cementless stems were associated with an increased risk of early PPF (OR: 3.11; P = .03) compared to collared-cementless stems. There were no early PPFs in the matched cemented cohort, 6 early PPFs in the matched collared-cementless cohort, and 16 early-PPFs in the matched non-collared cementless cohort (0% versus 0.64% versus 1.71%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-series of patients >65 years of age undergoing primary THA, cemented stem fixation had the lowest incidence of early PPF, but collared-cementless stems had a nearly 3-fold decrease in risk for early PPF compared to non-collared cementless stems.

Osteoporosis and Total Knee Arthroplasty: Higher 5-Year Implant-Related Complications.

BACKGROUND: The risk of revision surgery in patients who have osteoporosis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is understudied. Our aim was to compare the 5-year cumulative risk of revision surgery after TKA in patients who have preoperative osteoporosis. METHODS: A national administrative claims database was queried for patients undergoing primary TKA from 2010 to 2021. There were 418,054 patients included, and 41,760 (10%) had osteoporosis. The 5-year incidence of revision surgery was examined for all-causes, periprosthetic fracture (PPF), aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). A multivariable analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazards models. Hazards ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The 5-year rate of all-cause revision surgery was higher for patients who had osteoporosis (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.2), however, the highest risk of revision surgery was seen for PPF (HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.6 to 2.1). Patients who had osteoporosis also had elevated risk of revision surgery for PJI (HR 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.3) and aseptic loosening (HR 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.3). Osteoporosis was independently associated with PJI and aseptic loosening at a higher rate in obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: In unadjusted survival analysis, those who had osteoporosis have a marginally lower risk of all-cause revision surgery. However, after controlling for age, sex and comorbidities, patients who had osteoporosis have a nearly 2-fold increased risk of 5-year revision for PPF after TKA, and mildly increased risk of revision for all causes, aseptic loosening, and PJI. Obesity may also modulate this association. Future studies should determine the extent to which treatment of osteoporosis modifies these postoperative outcomes.

Early Periprosthetic Femur Fractures After Primary Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: High Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Subsequent Reoperation.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a leading cause of early reoperation. The objective of this study was to compare rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and reoperation following PFFs occurring early postoperatively to those that occurred late. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 173 consecutive surgically managed PFFs following primary THA. Cases were categorized as "early" if they occurred within 90 days of THA (n = 117) or "late" if they occurred following the initial 90 days (n = 56). Mean age at time of PFF was 68 years (range, 26 to 96) and 60% were women. Mean body mass index was 29 (range, 16 to 52). Mean follow-up was 2 years (range, 0 to 13). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated cumulative incidences of PJI and reoperation. RESULTS: Early PFFs had higher 2-year cumulative incidence of PJI (11% versus 0%, P < .001) and reoperation (24% versus 13%, P = .110). Following early PFF, 27 patients required reoperation (ie, 13 for PJI, 5 for instability, 2 for re-fracture, 2 for painful hardware, 2 for non-union, 1 for adverse local tissue reaction, 1 for aseptic loosening, and 1 for leg-length discrepancy). Following late PFF, 5 patients required reoperation (ie, 3 for instability, 1 for re-fracture, and 1 for non-union). CONCLUSIONS: There are greater incidences of PJIs and overall reoperations following early PFFs compared to late PFFs after THA. In addition to focusing efforts on prevention of early PFFs, surgeons should consider antiseptic interventions to mitigate the increased risk of PJI after treatment of early PFF.

Intraincisional Pin Placement is Safe for Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: While robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has seen a major increase in its utilization, it requires bone array pins to be fixed into the femur and tibia, which intrinsically carries a risk. As it is currently off-label with some robotic platforms to place pins intraincisional, we aimed to evaluate the safety of intraincisional pin placement during RA-TKAs. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 2,343 patients who underwent RA-TKA at a North American Healthcare System between January 2018 and March 2022 was included. Primary outcomes included periprosthetic fracture or infection (eg, superficial or deep). Secondary outcomes included 1-year reoperation rate due to any cause. Cases were retrospectively reviewed to determine whether complications could be attributed to metaphyseal intraincisional pin placement (4.0 mm pins; two tibial and two femoral). The 90-day follow-up was 100% and the 1-year follow-up rate was 70.6% (n = 1,655). RESULTS: The pin-site related periprosthetic fracture incidence at 90 days was 0.09% (2 out of 2,343). The 90-day infection incidence was 1.4% (superficial: 22; deep: 13). The 1-year reoperation rate was 1.8% (29 out of 1,655). The most common causes of reoperation at 1-year were deep infection (n = 14; 0.83%), superficial infection (n = 3; 0.18%), periprosthetic fracture, mechanical symptoms, instability, and hematoma (n = 2; 0.12% for each). CONCLUSIONS: One in 1,172 patients may experience a pin-related periprosthetic fracture after RA-TKA with intraincisional bone array pin placement. There was a low 90-day infection incidence and reoperations within 1-year after RA-TKA were rare.