Proximal Femoral Replacement in the Management of Acute Periprosthetic Fractures of the Hip: A Competing Risks Survival Analysis

To examine the mortality and implant survivorship of proximal femoral replacement (PFR), revision total hip arthroplasty (REV) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of acute periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur, we retrospectively reviewed 97 consecutive acute periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures from 2000 to 2010. Three groups were defined: PFR (n = 21), REV (n = 19), and ORIF (n = 57). Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, implant failure, and reoperation. Competing Risks survival analysis of overall mortality during the mean 35-month follow-up showed no statistical difference between the three groups (P = 0.65; 12 and 60 month mortality for PFR: 37%, 45%; REV: 16%, 46%; ORIF: 14%, 100%). Implant survival was worse for the PFR group (P = 0.03, 12 and 60-month implant failure rate for PFR: 5%, 39%; REV: 7%, 7%; ORIF 2%, 2%). We conclude that PFR as compared with REV or ORIF may have worse medium-term implant survival, primarily due to instability and dislocation.     

Systematic Review of Proximal Femoral Arthroplasty for Non-Neoplastic Conditions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an established treatment modality following oncological resection. Increasingly, these prostheses are being used for non-neoplastic conditions such as fractures and bone loss associated with septic or aseptic loosening. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the failure rates, mortality rates and hip outcome scores when PFAs were used in non-neoplastic conditions. There were 14 studies with an average follow-up of 3.8 years (range 0–14 years) describing 356 PFAs. Re-operation for any reason occurred in 23.8% (85/356) of cases. The most common complications were dislocation (15.7%) and infection (7.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 0% to 40%. PFA provides an acceptable surgical solution when confronted with massive bone loss, but it has a high re-operation rate for dislocation and infection.     

Indication for Proximal Femoral Replacement Is Associated With Risk of Failure

BackgroundProximal femoral replacement (PFR) is reserved as a salvage procedure after failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) or after wide margin resection of tumors involving the proximal femur. Although failure of the PFR construct remains a significant problem, indication has not previously been investigated as a risk factor for failure.MethodsThis study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent PFR over a consecutive 15-year period for primary sarcoma or metastatic disease of the proximal femur, compared with conversion to PFR after failed THA. PFR failure was defined as recurrent prosthetic dislocations, periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or infection that ultimately resulted in revision surgery.ResultsOverall, 99 patients were evaluated, including 58 in the neoplasm and 41 in the failed THA cohorts. Failed THA patients were older (P < .001), with a greater proportion having comorbid hypertension (P = .008), cardiac disease (P = .014), and history of prior ipsilateral and intracapsular surgeries (P < .001). The failure rate was significantly higher in failed THA patients (39.0% vs 10.3%; P < .001) with significantly shorter implant survivorship on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .003). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that THA failure was the only independent predictor for PFR failure (hazard ratio: 4.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.66-10.94; P = .003).ConclusionThis study revealed significantly worse PFR implant survivorship in patients undergoing PFR for the indication of failed THA compared with neoplasm. Although the underlying etiology of this relationship remains to be explicitly outlined, poor bone quality and soft tissue integrity, multiple prior surgeries, and comorbid conditions are likely contributing factors.     

Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundProximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions.MethodsA retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed.ResultsUsing revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation.ConclusionPFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.     

骨水泥型人工股骨头置换治疗高龄陈旧股骨颈骨折

目的评估骨水泥型人工双极股骨头置换术治疗老年陈旧性股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。方法 2005年1月至2008年1月,应用骨水泥型人工双极股骨头置换术治疗老年陈旧性股骨颈骨折30例。术后对骨质疏松症进行治疗。根据H arris评分、X线片以及测量骨密度对临床效果进行评估。结果 28例患者获得完整随访,2例患者在随访过程中死亡,随访时间2.3~4.7年,平均3.5年。H arris评分由术后的平均71分（68~80分）提高到末次随访的平均82分（平均74~85分）,优良率为78.6%。术后12个月患者股骨假体周围RO I 1区、RO I 2区、RO I 6区和RO I 7区骨密度变化率差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。X线检查未见假体移位及周围出现透亮带,无病例需要翻修。结论骨水泥型人工双极股骨头置换术是治疗高龄陈旧性股骨颈骨折的可行方法,但是应做好术前准备及注意术中细节处理,术后需要治疗骨质疏松症。     

The Use of Standard Cemented Femoral Stems in Total Hip Replacement After Failed Internal Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures

BackgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) after failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fractures is challenging. The aim of this study is to show the reliability of using standard cemented femoral stems in this operation.MethodsThis work included 107 THRs performed in 107 patients after failed treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. The etiology of failure included 67 cases of failure of fixation, 16 cases of nonunion, 15 cases of avascular necrosis, and 9 cases of post-traumatic osteoarthritis. There were 48 males and 59 females. The mean age was 66 years (range 58-81). Failed dynamic hip screws were removed at the time of THR, and the screw holes were blocked with cement. All cases had cemented standard stem femoral prostheses.ResultsAt an average 7.4 years with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up, 102 cases had good clinical and radiological outcomes and 5 cases had fair outcomes. One patient was infected and required 2 stages of revision arthroplasty. Two cases had intraoperative proximal femoral crack, and were treated by cerclage wires. Two patients had early postoperative dislocations. No patients had late periprosthetic femoral fractures or implant loosening.ConclusionStandard cemented femoral stems are reliable and cost-effective prostheses in such cases. It is not necessary to bypass the distal screw hole by doubling the femoral canal diameter as long as the bone holes are covered by cement.     

Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures After TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Review

BackgroundDistal femoral replacement (DFR) is a potential treatment option following periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is limited literature regarding implant survivorship and complication rates. The aim of this study was to examine patient demographics and trends in usage, implant survivorship and modes of failure, and patient mortality following DFR for PPF captured by a national joint replacement registry.MethodsA retrospective registry review was performed using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). In total, 306 DFR were performed for PPF of a known primary TKA. Eighty-five percent of patients were female, and the mean age was 76.4 years. Kaplan–Meier estimates of implant and patient survivorship were performed.ResultsThe number of DFR performed for PPF has doubled over the past five years. The cumulative percent second revision rate at six years was 12%. The most common indications for revision were infection (37%) and aseptic loosening (33%). Patient survivorship after DFR was 97% and 83% at five and ten years, respectively.ConclusionA national registry review has identified the increasing prevalence of DFR for PPF after primary TKA and demonstrated implant survivorship of 88% at midterm follow-up. Surgeons may consider DFR as an acceptable and durable treatment option.Level of EvidenceLevel III – Case Series.     

Prevalence,Risk Factors,and Management of Proximal Femoral Remodeling in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

The prevalence of, risk factors, and management of proximal femoral remodeling in revision total hip arthroplasty is unknown. Therefore, we reviewed the files of 200 consecutive femoral revision arthroplasties to study this phenomenon. Remodeling was considered present if a properly sized diaphyseal-engaging acrylic template had appropriate distal canal fill but lied within 2 mm of the proximal lateral endosteal cortex (definition 1) or completely outside the femoral canal (definition 2) on anteroposterior femoral radiographs. The prevalence of remodeling was 42% by definition 1 and 21% by definition 2. The strongest risk factors were loose femoral components and more severe femoral bone loss. Orthopedic surgeons performing revision arthroplasty should be prepared to encounter remodeling as its presence can complicate femoral component revision.     

Clinical Outcomes Following Distal Femur Replacement for Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundManagement of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFFs) is often complicated by poor bone quality and limited bone stock making fixation attempts challenging and prone to failure. Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is being used to treat such injuries although outcome data are mostly from small case series. We sought to systematically review the literature on DFR for PDFF to summarize their outcomes.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE (EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Database were searched to identify reports of PDFFs treated with DFR. Articles reporting on 5 or more knees were systematically reviewed for clinical function, complications, and mortality. Random effects meta-analysis was used to create summary estimates and publication bias also assessed.ResultsOf 287 identified and screened articles, 15 were included, 14 retrospective, reporting on 352 knees. Following DFR, 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71-95) of patients were able to ambulate. The mean postoperative Knee Society Score was 80 (95% CI 77-84). The risk of periprosthetic joint infection was 4.3% (95% CI 2.2-8.2). One-year postoperative mortality rate was 10% (95% CI 6-18). There was some evidence of publication bias with a trend toward smaller studies reporting lower infection risk and mortality.ConclusionDFR for PDFFs is associated with high functional outcomes and a relatively modest risk of infection. The periprosthetic joint infection and 1-year mortality rates reported here should be considered lower bounds estimates due to publication bias and loss to follow-up. Further investigation of long-term outcomes following DFR for PDFFs is warranted though short-term functional outcomes are promising.     

Distal Femoral Replacement and Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Non-Oncological Reconstruction: A Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundDistal femoral replacement (DFR) is commonly used to manage massive bone loss around the knee arising from aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and distal femoral fractures. A number of studies report the outcome of DFR with considerable variation in long-term survivorship. This study investigated the outcome of DFR for patients with aseptic failures, fractures, and PJI.MethodsA retrospective review of 182 patients who underwent DFR for non-oncological indications between 2002 and 2018 was conducted. Data collected included the following: indication, postoperative complications, reoperation, revision, and follow-up. Implant survivorship with Kaplan-Meier curves along with a log-rank test for different preoperative indications was performed. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the risk of revision.ResultsThe overall postoperative complication rate was very high at 36%. The most common complication was PJI (17%). The rate of reoperation for any cause was 29.7%, and the revision rate was 13.7%. The most common cause of re-revision was PJI (7.1%). Revision-free survivorship of the DFR implant was 91.6% at 1 year, 87.9% at 2 years, 82.5% at 5 years, and 73.4% at 10 years. Patients who had a prior-PJI had the lowest survivorship compared to patients undergoing DFR for management of periprosthetic fracture and mechanical loosening. Additionally, the prior-PJI group was at a fourfold increased risk of postoperative PJI compared to the aseptic group.ConclusionDFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive bone loss around the knee. However, patients undergoing DFR are at high risk of complications, reoperations, and failure.     

Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Proximal Femoral Fractures by Distal Locking Femoral Stem (Cannulok) in Patients 75 Years and Older

Background

Periprosthetic fracture following total hip arthroplasty is a significant problem faced by hip surgeons, and its management in elderly patients remains a considerable challenge.

Acetabular Erosion After Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Femoral Replacement for Malignant Bone Tumors

BackgroundHemiarthroplasty megaprosthetic proximal femur reconstruction after tumor resection is a widespread procedure in orthopedic oncology. One potential complication is acetabular wear requiring secondary acetabular revision. The study’s purpose is to investigate prevalence of acetabular erosion, secondary revisions, and potential risk factors.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 112 patients who underwent proximal femur replacement after resection of a malignant bone tumor and had radiological follow-up longer than 12 months. Patient demographic, surgical, and oncologic factors were recorded, acetabular wear was measured using the classification proposed by Baker, and prosthetic failure was classified using the International Society on Limb Salvage classification. Functional assessment was performed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score and Harris Hip Score.ResultsPrevalence of acetabular wear was 28.6%. Secondary conversion to total hip arthroplasty was required in 5 patients (4.6%), all treated for primary bone tumors. No patient treated for metastatic tumor had higher grade acetabular wear or required revision. Significant risk factors for the development of acetabular wear were age under 40 (P = .035) and longer follow-up (63 vs 43 months, P = .004). Other patient, surgical, or adjuvant treatment-related factors were not associated with acetabular revision or acetabular wear. The dislocation rate in the patient cohort was 0.9%.ConclusionBipolar hemiarthroplasty proximal femoral replacement represents a durable reconstruction after tumor resection. Hip instability is rare. Acetabular erosion is rare and can be successfully treated with conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Young patients with long-term survival over 10 years are at risk. In reconstruction for metastases, instability and acetabular wear are rare.     

Cement-in-Cement Revision for Selected Vancouver Type B1 Femoral Periprosthetic Fractures: A Biomechanical Analysis

The aim of this study was to perform a biomechanical analysis of the cement-in-cement (c-in-c) technique for fixation of selected Vancouver Type B1 femoral periprosthetic fractures and to assess the degree of cement interposition at the fracture site. Six embalmed cadaveric femora were implanted with a cemented femoral stem. Vancouver Type B1 fractures were created by applying a combined axial and rotational load to failure. The femora were repaired using the c-in-c technique and reloaded to failure. The mean primary fracture torque was 117 Nm (SD 16.6, range 89–133). The mean revision fracture torque was 50 Nm (SD 16.6, range 29–74), which is above the torque previously observed for activities of daily living. Cement interposition at the fracture site was found to be minimal.     

Proximal Femoral Replacement and Allograft Prosthesis Composite in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Fractures with Significant Proximal Bone Loss

Femoral bone loss due to periprosthetic fracture, a challenging problem in total hip arthroplasty (THA), is increasingly encountered due to a rise in the number of revision THAs performed. Allograft prosthesis composite (APC) and proximal femoral replacement (PFR) are two available options for management of patients with difficult type‐B₃ Vancouver periprosthetic fractures. The treatment algorithm for patients with these fractures has been extensively studied and is influenced by the age and activity level of the patient. APC is often preferred in young and active patients in an attempt to preserve bone stock while older and less active patients are considered candidates for PFR. In spite of the high rate of overall complications with these two procedures, reported survivorship is acceptable. Treating patients with these complicated fractures is fraught with complications and, even with successful treatment, the outcomes are not as promising as those associated with primary hip replacement. In this paper, we aimed to review available published reports about PFR and APC for treatment of periprosthetic fractures around THAs.     

The Effect of Femoral Fixation on Revision and Mortality Following Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Over the Age of 65 years. An Analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry

BackgroundWith the overwhelming use of cementless femoral fixation for primary total hip arthroplasty in the United States, the associations of stem fixation on the risk of revision and mortality are poorly understood. We evaluated the relationship between femoral fixation and risk of revision and mortality in patients included in the American Joint Replacement Registry.MethodsElective, primary, unilateral total hip arthroplasties in the American Joint Replacement Registry, in patients over the age of 65 years were considered. In total, 9,612 patients with a cemented stem were exact matched 1:1 with patients who received a cementless stem based on age, gender, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Outcomes compared between the groups included need and reason for revision at 90 days and 1 year; in-hospital, 90-day, and 1-year mortality; and mortality after early revision. Covariates were used in linear regression analyses.ResultsCemented fixation was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of 90-day revision, and a reduction in the risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture of 87% at 90 days and 81% at 1 year. Cemented fixation was associated with increased 90-day and 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR] 3.15, confidence interval [CI] 2.24-4.43 and OR 2.36, CI 1.86-3.01, respectively). Patients who underwent subsequent revision surgery within the first year exhibited the highest mortality risk (OR 3.23, CI 1.05-9.97).ConclusionIn this representative sample of the United States, 90-day revision for any reason and for periprosthetic fracture was significantly reduced in patients with a cemented stem. This benefit must be weighed against the association with increased mortality and with the high risk of mortality associated with early revision, which was more prevalent with cementless fixation.     

Treatment of Failed Allograft Prosthesis Composites Used for Hip Arthroplasty in the Setting of Severe Proximal Femoral Bone Defects

This study assessed failures of allograft prosthesis composites (APC) and revisions with a new APC. Twenty-one patients with failed APC’s after revision hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss underwent revision with a new APC. Causes of failure were aseptic loosening (18 patients), infection (3 patients). Of these 21 APC revisions, two patients failed (after 60, 156 months). The 5 and 10 year survival rates were 83.5% (95% CI, 79–100%, number at risk 12 and 6 accordingly). In addition, two patients had non-union at the host-allograft bone junction and were augmented with bone autograft and plate. These results suggest that failed APCs may be revised to a new APC with a predictable outcome.     

Metaphyseal Stem Tip Location is a Risk Factor for Aseptic Loosening of Cemented Distal Femoral Replacements

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to describe the incidence of aseptic loosening (AL) of cemented stem distal femoral replacements (DFR) and to identify modifiable risk factors for its development.MethodsA retrospective review was performed of 245 consecutive primary, cemented stem DFRs implanted at a single institution over a 40-year period. The primary outcome was revision surgery for AL. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AL. Radiographs were reviewed to identify stem tip location, which was defined as diaphyseal or metaphyseal. Implant survival to AL was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsAL and structural failure were the most common causes of implant failure (incidence 11.8%, 29/245). Younger age (P = .002), male sex (P = .01), longer resection length (P = .04), and nonmodular implants (P = .002) were all significantly associated with AL. After 1:1 matching, stem tip location in metaphyseal bone was independently associated with AL (P = .04). 36% (9/25) of implants that loosened had a stem tip located in the metaphysis vs only 8% (2/25) of implants that did not fail. 30-year survival to AL was lower for implants with a metaphyseal stem tip than implants with a diaphyseal stem tip (22.7% vs 47.6%; P = .11).ConclusionA stem tip location in metaphyseal bone is associated with diminished survival to AL. When templating before DFR, stem tip location can assist in identifying high-risk reconstructions that may benefit from alternative or supplemental fixation techniques to prevent the development of AL.     

The Management of Periprosthetic Fractures Oxford Trimodular Femoral Stem: A Survivorship Study

A consecutive series of 40 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated with revision hip surgery using the Oxford trimodular femoral stem, were retrospectively studied, with an average follow-up of 7.9 years. Fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. There were 5 type B1 fractures, 28 type B2, and 7 type C. Radiographic union was achieved in 38 (95%) hips. The mean time to fracture union was 3.5 months. The prosthesis survival at 5 years was 95% (confidence interval, 88%-100%). Clinical results were good with a mean Oxford hip score of 30 (hip score maximum, 48). Complications included 1 nonunion, 1 infection, 1 dislocation, and 2 aseptic loosening. The Oxford trimodular femoral component is a safe and reliable prosthesis for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with satisfactory medium-term results.     

Proximal Femoral Allograft-Prosthetic Composites: Do They Really Restore Bone? A Retrospective Review of Revision Allograft-Prosthetic Composites

Background

Large bone deficiencies are a challenging problem, historically treated with an allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) or megaprosthesis. There were several advantages of the APC compared with early megaprostheses, including the theoretical benefit of restoring bone stock. To our knowledge, there are no studies that have evaluated this claim. Our purpose was to review our institution's experience with APCs of the proximal femur that underwent revision for an aseptic cause and determine if the allograft bone was retained or removed during the revision procedure.

Implant Longevity,Complications and Functional Outcome Following Proximal Femoral Arthroplasty for Musculoskeletal Tumors : A Systematic Review

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to evaluate the outcomes and complications following proximal femoral arthroplasty for primary or metastatic tumors affecting the proximal femur. Six hundred sixty-eight patients were available for review. The length of resection ranged from 92 to 212 mm. Limb salvage rate reached over 90%. At 5 years the implant survival rate was 84% and at 10 years, it was 70%. The overall revision rate was 11.1%. Prevalence of venous thrombo-embolic (VTE) events was 8.5%, dislocation rate was 5.8%, infection was 5.2%, local tumor reoccurrence was 4.7%, perioperative mortality was 1.5%, and periprosthetic fracture was 0.6%. Where it was provided the Musculoskeletal Tumour Score was 70.8%. The implants tend to outlive patients with metastatic disease and high-grade localized disease, providing them with a relatively pain-free limb with good mobility and quality of life.