Fracture pattern and risk factors for reoperation after treatment of 156 periprosthetic fractures around an anatomic cemented hip stem.
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 08 2023
16 08 2023
Historique:
received:
24
08
2022
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
18
8
2023
entrez:
18
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Lubinus SP2 stem has been associated with a very low risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs). We aimed, primarily, to study the radiographic morphology of PPFFs close to a Lubinus SP2 stem. Secondarily, we analyzed whether higher reoperation rate was correlated to the revision method chosen or to the characteristics of the fracture and of the bone. The study included 156 femoral fractures close to a Lubinus cemented stem. These fractures were treated in 40 hospitals in Sweden between 2006 and 2011 and were followed up until 2019. Data from the Swedish Arthroplasty Register was used. Medical records and radiographs were studied. The fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. The fracture location and anatomy were delineated. We also measured the remaining attachment index (RAI) and the canal thickness ratio. Vancouver type C (n = 101) and spiral fractures (n = 67, 41 in Vancouver C and 26 in Vancouver B) were the most common fracture types. 4 fractures were avulsion of the greater trochanter. The remaining 51 fractures occurred around the stem (B1: 25, B2: 16, and B3: 10). B fractures were more commonly reoperated on (18 of 51, 35%) than type C fractures (11 of 101, 11%, P = 0.001). In most femurs with type B3 fracture, the fracture line covered an area only around the stem, but in all B1 and in 11 of 16 B2 fractures, it was extended even distal to the stem. ORIF instead of stem revision in B2 fractures, use of short stems or plates, and inadequate reduction of the fractures were risk factors for subsequent reoperations. The higher reoperation rate in type B fractures, compared with fractures distal to the stem, could be caused by their higher degree of complexity and reduced capacity for healing in the region around the stem.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Lubinus SP2 stem has been associated with a very low risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs). We aimed, primarily, to study the radiographic morphology of PPFFs close to a Lubinus SP2 stem. Secondarily, we analyzed whether higher reoperation rate was correlated to the revision method chosen or to the characteristics of the fracture and of the bone.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The study included 156 femoral fractures close to a Lubinus cemented stem. These fractures were treated in 40 hospitals in Sweden between 2006 and 2011 and were followed up until 2019. Data from the Swedish Arthroplasty Register was used. Medical records and radiographs were studied. The fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. The fracture location and anatomy were delineated. We also measured the remaining attachment index (RAI) and the canal thickness ratio.
RESULTS
Vancouver type C (n = 101) and spiral fractures (n = 67, 41 in Vancouver C and 26 in Vancouver B) were the most common fracture types. 4 fractures were avulsion of the greater trochanter. The remaining 51 fractures occurred around the stem (B1: 25, B2: 16, and B3: 10). B fractures were more commonly reoperated on (18 of 51, 35%) than type C fractures (11 of 101, 11%, P = 0.001). In most femurs with type B3 fracture, the fracture line covered an area only around the stem, but in all B1 and in 11 of 16 B2 fractures, it was extended even distal to the stem. ORIF instead of stem revision in B2 fractures, use of short stems or plates, and inadequate reduction of the fractures were risk factors for subsequent reoperations.
CONCLUSION
The higher reoperation rate in type B fractures, compared with fractures distal to the stem, could be caused by their higher degree of complexity and reduced capacity for healing in the region around the stem.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37593786
doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.18263
pmc: PMC10436285
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
438-446Références
Acta Orthop. 2019 Apr;90(2):135-142
pubmed: 30739553
Injury. 2015 Oct;46(10):1945-50
pubmed: 26115579
Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293-304
pubmed: 7797866
Osteoporos Int. 2007 Aug;18(8):1119-26
pubmed: 17340218
Bone Joint J. 2019 Nov;101-B(11):1447-1458
pubmed: 31674248
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Nov;142(11):3221-3228
pubmed: 34390386
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Apr;30(4):669-74
pubmed: 25434610
Bone Joint J. 2017 Apr;99-B(4):451-457
pubmed: 28385933
Acta Orthop. 2019 Jun;90(3):226-230
pubmed: 30931668
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Oct 1;96(19):e167
pubmed: 25274795
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2006 Sep;92(5 Suppl):2S60-2S64
pubmed: 17802658
Acta Orthop. 2020 Jun;91(3):286-292
pubmed: 32285735
J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):1067-71
pubmed: 24295802
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 May 22;15:168
pubmed: 24885707
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jun;31(6):1283-1288
pubmed: 26935943
Hip Int. 2013 Sep-Oct;23(5):459-64
pubmed: 23813164
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 May;28(4):659-665
pubmed: 29423864
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1989;108(3):141-3
pubmed: 2730295
Injury. 2011 Nov;42(11):1271-6
pubmed: 21315343
Injury. 2013 Dec;44(12):1799-804
pubmed: 24011628
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 Nov;106(7):1413-1417
pubmed: 33055000
Bone Joint J. 2016 Apr;98-B(4):461-7
pubmed: 27037427
Hip Int. 2019 May;29(3):282-288
pubmed: 30009622