Periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed implants: use of cortical onlay allografts with or without a plate

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip replacements are increasingly common. When the femoral component is stable, open reduction and internal fixation is recommended in all but exceptional cases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of treatment of fractures around stable implants with cortical onlay strut allografts with or without a plate. METHODS: A survey of our four centers identified forty patients with a fracture around a well-fixed femoral stem treated with cortical onlay strut allografts without revision of the femoral component. There were fourteen men and twenty-six women, with an average age of sixty-nine years. Nineteen patients were treated with cortical onlay strut allografts alone, and twenty-one were managed with a plate and one or two cortical struts. All of the patients were followed until fracture union or until a reoperation was done. The mean duration of follow-up was twenty-eight months for thirty-nine patients. One patient, who was noncompliant with treatment recommendations, had a failure at two months because of a fracture of the plate and graft. The primary end point of the evaluation was fracture union; secondary end points included strut-to-host bone union, the amount of final bone stock, and postoperative function. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (98%) of the forty fractures united, and strut-to-host bone union was typically seen within the first year. There were four malunions, all of which had <10 degrees of malalignment, and one deep infection. There was no evidence of femoral loosening in any patient. All but one of the surviving patients returned to their preoperative functional level within one year. CONCLUSIONS: Cortical onlay strut allografts act as biological bone plates, serving both a mechanical and a biological function. The use of cortical struts, either alone or in conjunction with a plate, led to a very high rate of fracture union, satisfactory alignment, and an increase in femoral bone stock at the time of short-term follow-up. Although this study did not address the potential for later allograft remodeling, our findings suggest that cortical strut grafts should be used routinely to augment fixation and healing of a periprosthetic femoral fracture.     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗的随访研究

目的 探讨全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗方法的选择,总结同种异体皮质骨板移植重建股骨假体周围骨折的临床效果.方法 22例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者,男7例,女15例;年龄平均65岁(53～75岁).Vancouver分类B1型5例,B2型4例,B3型13例.B1型骨折采用异体皮质骨板移植加钢丝环扎治疗;B2型骨折选择加长股骨柄翻修;B3型骨折选择骨水泥柄翻修,加同种异体皮质骨板移植和钢丝环扎同定.所有患者均获得随访,随访时间平均67个月(37～95个月).采用Harris髋关节功能评分、X线片、外周血T淋巴细胞亚群、抗体免疫复合物检测 和核素骨显像对治疗结果进行评价.结果 22例患者骨折全部愈合,21例患者能自由行走,1例需要助 行器帮助.末次随访Harris评分平均89分(79～93分).患者未发生免疫排斥反应;术后3个月,骨折愈合,术后12个月,移植骨板与宿主骨骨性愈合,股骨皮质厚度增加3～5mm;核素骨显像骨板移植区放射性核素分布较对侧浓集.3例患者移植骨板出现部分吸收现象.术后2年.骨板与宿主骨融合,移植骨板吸收停止.结论 针对股骨假体周围骨折不同类型分别采取不同方法治疗能够取得较好疗效,同种异体皮质骨板移植在维持骨折稳定性、促进骨折愈合、增加局部骨量和改善骨强度方面有较好疗效.     

Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折的手术治疗

目的探讨Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折的理想手术治疗方式。方法2000年3月至2008年1月,12例VancouverB1型股骨假体周围骨折患者行切开复位、内固定治疗。男2例,女10例;年龄62—85岁,平均72岁。内固定方式包括LISS锁定接骨板系统、加压接骨板系统,部分病例结合使用多道钢丝或钢缆捆扎固定,及异体柱状皮质骨和（或）DBM人工骨植骨。对术后骨折延迟愈合患者行自体骨髓灌注等治疗。结果患者均获得随访,随访时间12—96个月,平均32个月。除1例术后发生骨折移位失败外,骨折均愈合,愈合时间3～12个月,平均4．3个月。Harris评分：65—92分,平均79分。结论VancouverB1型股骨假体周围骨折发生率高,处理棘手。目前,LISS系统是治疗此类骨折最有效的方式之一,应尽量使用微创技术以减少骨折处的血供破坏,如需切开整复骨折,应常规植骨,必要时术后可于骨折处定期灌注自体骨髓以促进骨愈合。     

钢板结合异体骨板对粉碎性Vancouver B1型假体周围股骨骨折的疗效观察

目的 :观察钢板结合异体骨板对严重粉碎性Vancouver B1型假体周围股骨骨折的疗效,评价其效果。方法:2006年1月至2013年1月采用钢板-钢丝系统结合异体骨板治疗严重粉碎性Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折患者8例,男6例,女2例;年龄56~74岁,平均62.52岁。所有患者采用长的钢板、钢丝及长度合适的异体骨板。以Harris评分标准对患者手术前后髋关节功能进行评估,通过数字化X线摄片技术对假体稳定性、异体骨板愈合情况进行评估。结果:8例患者获得随访,时间24~60个月,平均45个月,所有患者骨折愈合,未出现感染、松动、骨折不愈合及畸形愈合。Harris评分由术前的(28.45±5.78)分提高至术后的(83.46±10.21)分。至随访结束,7例患者假体稳定,异体骨板愈合良好;另1例患者因假体松动行翻修术。结论:应用钢板-钢丝系统结合异体骨板对严重粉碎性Vancouver B1型假体周围股骨骨折进行手术操作简便,并发症少,术后髋关节功能恢复良好,可以提高骨的质量,增加骨量,为Ⅱ期可能的翻修提供有利条件。     

Cortical strut allografts for the treatment of femoral fractures and deficiencies in revision total hip arthroplasty

Thirty-three hips had revision total hip arthroplasty, using an average of three cortical strut allografts fixed to the femur with cables and followed-up for a mean of 4 years. The indications for strut allografts were ectatic femurs or segmental defects of the femoral diaphysis (22 hips), femoral fractures (10 hips), and severe proximal femoral osteolysis (1 hip). Twenty-one hips had an excellent or good clinical result, 6 had a fair clinical result, and 6 had a poor clinical result. Reoperation was done in six hips, but in only two hips was reoperation related to failure of the allograft. Nine of the 10 femoral fractures repaired with allograft struts healed by 3 to 6 months. Radiographs showed partial or complete bridging of the allograft to host bone with peripheral remodeling and minimal resorption in 30 of 33 hips. Strut allografts, fixed with multiple cables, are an important adjunct to femoral component revision for the restoration of deficient femoral bone stock and in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures.     

全髋关节置换假体柄周围骨折的治疗

目的 :回顾性研究全髋关节置换假体柄周围骨折的治疗及预防。方法 :将本院近年收治的全髋置换假体柄周围骨折的 8例病例按Vancouver分类方法进行分类 ,其中A1型 3例 ,B1型 3例 ,B2型 1例 ,B3型 1例 ,分别用钢丝环扎固定 ,异体皮质骨板加钢丝环扎 ;骨水泥长柄假体翻修。结果 :术后随访 8～ 18个月 ,骨折愈合 ,假体固定可靠。结论 :全髋关节置换术后假体柄周围骨折用Vancouver分类方法分类 ,简单、适用。采用异体皮质骨板与钢丝环扎固定骨折 ,治疗假体柄周围骨折 ,不仅固定可靠而且能促进骨折愈合、恢复骨量。     

Endosteal substitution with an allograft cortical strut in the treatment of a periprosthetic femur fracture: a case report

The use of allograft cortical struts in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur has been well described. Allograft struts are used to supplement cerclage wire fixation or may be placed outside the cortex opposite plate and screw fixation to improve screw fixation in osteoporotic bone. This generally requires extensive soft tissue stripping and may lead to delayed bony union. A technique is described wherein an allograft strut was inserted into the medullary canal through the fracture site and used as an endosteal substitution for osteoporotic cortical bone. This technique can improve screw fixation in osteoporotic bone while avoiding devascularization of the fractured femur.     

Use of Locking Plate and Strut Onlay Allografts for Periprosthetic Fracture Around Well-Fixed Femoral Components

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine: validated clinical and radiographic outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fractures around stable hip implants treated with plate fixation and additional cortical strut onlay allografts without revision of the stem; radiographic signs of fracture healing; allograft-to-host bone union; resorption of cortical strut allograft; and frequency of complications.

Strut allografts for failed treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: Good outcome in 13 patients

Strut allografts are not recommended after a femoral shaft exposure, because they may endanger the femoral blood supply. Up till now, we have seen no clinical reports on this problem. We treated 13 consecutive patients with very large anteromedial and anterolateral femoral strut allografts to restabilize periprosthetic fractures which had become loose after a previous attempt at surgical fixation (Vancouver type B fractures with severe bone loss). In 8 cases, the stem was revised in conjunction with the use of strut allografts and in 5 cases, strut allografts alone were used. All refractures and nonunions healed without further treatment. At a mean follow-up of 3 (1.2-7) years, the mean Harris Hip Score was 78 (65-92). All strut grafts showed ingrowth with augmentation of periprosthetic bone on the radiographs. There were 3 complications, 1 nonprogressive subsidence of a revision stem (fibrous stable), 1 deep hematoma and 1 partial lesion of the sciatic nerve. In this series, strut grafts gave reliable healing with augmentation of the host bone stock despite previous femoral exposure, severe bone loss, adverse type of fracture, and persistent instability at the index operation.     

Strut allografts for failed treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: good outcome in 13 patients

Strut allografts are not recommended after a femoral shaft exposure, because they may endanger the femoral blood supply. Up till now, we have seen no clinical reports on this problem. We treated 13 consecutive patients with very large anteromedial and anterolateral femoral strut allografts to restabilize periprosthetic fractures which had become loose after a previous attempt at surgical fixation (Vancouver type B fractures with severe bone loss). In 8 cases, the stem was revised in conjunction with the use of strut allografts and in 5 cases, strut allografts alone were used. All refractures and nonunions healed without further treatment. At a mean follow-up of 3 (1.2-7) years, the mean Harris Hip Score was 78 (65-92). All strut grafts showed ingrowth with augmentation of periprosthetic bone on the radiographs. There were 3 complications, 1 nonprogressive subsidence of a revision stem (fibrous stable), 1 deep hematoma and 1 partial lesion of the sciatic nerve. In this series, strut grafts gave reliable healing with augmentation of the host bone stock despite previous femoral exposure, severe bone loss, adverse type of fracture, and persistent instability at the index operation.     

Proximal ulnar reconstruction with strut allograft in revision total elbow arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: The growing frequency of joint arthroplasty has led to increasing numbers of patients requiring revision surgery. In the treatment of a failed total elbow arthroplasty not associated with infection, one of the main issues is poor or absent proximal ulnar bone stock due to osteolysis. We report our experience with the use of strut allograft reconstruction of the proximal part of the ulna as an adjunct to revision total elbow arthroplasty with a noncustom implant. Our aim was to better define the indications, outcomes, and complications of this technique in a population of patients with a failed total elbow arthroplasty. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of patients with aseptic failure of a total elbow replacement and proximal ulnar bone deficiency who were treated with allograft bone struts. The patients had had an average of 2.5 (range, one to four) prior open osseous operations addressing the elbow joint. In addition to revision of the prosthetic components, the deficient bone stock was treated with allograft strut grafts in one of four ways: (1) discrete cortical defects were contained, (2) periprosthetic fractures were splinted, (3) deficient triceps attachments were reconstructed, and (4) expanded segments were augmented with struts and filled with impaction graft. Twenty-one patients (twenty-two elbows) were followed for an average of four years (range, two to eleven years). RESULTS: The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved from 34 points preoperatively to 79 points at the time of the latest follow-up. The scores for pain, stability, and activities of daily living improved most; there was little change in motion. Complications, consisting of four soft-tissue and four osseous problems, occurred in eight patients. Three patients had incorporation of 26% to 50% of the graft; five, 51% to 75%; and fourteen, 76% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Most deficiencies of proximal ulnar bone stock and fractures complicating revision total elbow surgery can be treated with allograft strut grafting. Although the complication rate is high, this technique is suitable for discrete cortical lesions, periprosthetic fractures, and an expanded proximal part of the ulna, which also requires augmentation with impaction grafting. The technique has been unreliable, however, in restoring deficient olecranon bone stock.     

Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after hip arthroplasty: The clinical outcome using cortical strut allografts

Between 1993 and 1998, 15 patients with periprosthetic fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty were treated using deep-frozen cortical strut allografts as an adjunct support after internal fixation or revision arthroplasty. According to the Vancouver classification system, there were 7 type B1, 2 type B2, 4 type B3 and 2 type C fractures. Seven patients had severe osteopenia, 10 patients had bone defects between 2 to 7 cm and 2 were associated with infection. Nine patients had internal fixation of the fracture using a compression plate, and 6 had revision arthroplasty using a long-stemmed femoral prosthesis. The average length of the allograft was 13.9 cm. At an average follow-up of 31 months, all the patients had a satisfactory functional result except one who had a leg length discrepancy of 4 cm due to multiple operations. There were no non-unions, malunions or infections. The fractures healed between 10 to 24 weeks (average, 15.6 weeks). In conclusion, a cortical strut allograft associated with internal fixation can be an effective method of treating periprosthetic fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty.     

Periprosthetic humeral fractures after total elbow arthroplasty: treatment with implant revision and strut allograft augmentation

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures are among the most challenging complications of elbow arthroplasty, and published information about the outcome of treatment is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine the results of implant revision and strut allograft augmentation for the treatment of humeral periprosthetic fractures that occur around a loose humeral component. METHODS: Between 1991 and 1999, eleven periprosthetic fractures that occurred around a loose humeral component were treated with cortical strut allograft augmentation and revision arthroplasty with use of a Coonrad-Morrey semiconstrained implant. Six fractures occurred after a primary arthroplasty, and five occurred after a revision arthroplasty. Two parallel strut grafts were used for fracture fixation in most cases. Patients were followed for an average of three years (range, nine months to 7.8 years) and were evaluated clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: Clinical and radiographic fracture union was obtained in ten of the eleven patients. One patient required revision surgery because of aseptic loosening of the humeral component seven years and nine months after fracture union; there were no other implant failures. Complications included one additional nondisplaced humeral periprosthetic fracture after surgery that failed to heal with closed treatment, one olecranon fracture, one permanent ulnar nerve injury, and one case of triceps insufficiency. At the time of the most recent follow-up, seven of the eight patients with an intact reconstruction had a functional arc of motion and no or slight pain and one had limited motion and moderate pain. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic humeral fractures that are associated with a loose humeral component can be effectively treated with revision elbow arthroplasty and strut allograft augmentation. The technique is associated with a high rate of fracture union, implant survival, and satisfactory clinical results. However, the complication rate is substantial.     

同种异体皮质骨板移植治疗股骨假体周围骨折

目的 评价同种异体皮质骨板移植治疗髋关节股骨假体周围骨折的临床治疗效果。方法 对7例髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者应用深低温冷冻和环氧乙烷处理同种异体皮质骨板移植治疗股骨骨折。根据Harris评分,外周血T淋巴细胞亚群、抗体和免疫复合物检测、X线摄片以及核素骨显像评价其治疗效果。结果 患者未发生免疫排斥反应和感染,术后3、6、12、24个月Harris评分分别比术前平均增加21、32、40、40分。术后3个月骨折愈合,一部分移植骨板与宿主骨骨性连接,同位素骨显像骨板移植区放射性分布比对侧浓集。术后12个月,85％移植骨板与宿主骨融为一体,宿主股骨皮质厚度增加3～5mm,平均4．3mm,骨板放射性浓集进一步加深,15％移植骨板出现吸收现象。术后24个月,80％移植骨板重新塑形后恢复宿主股骨皮质骨密度,10％骨板表面吸收停止,股骨假体无松动。结论 深低温冷冻和环氧乙烷处理同种异体皮质骨板移植无菌、抗原性弱、生物相容性好,移植骨板能够维持骨折和假体稳定性,增加股骨局部骨量储备,避免再次手术取出金属内置物,是用来治疗股骨假体周围骨折较理想的方法之一。     

Revision hip arthroplasty using strut allografts and fully porous-coated stems

At a minimum of 10 years after surgery, we prospectively evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasties using cortical strut allografts and fully porous-coated cementless revision femoral components in patients with massive femoral bone deficiency. There were 21 men and 33 women (54 hips) in the series, with patients' mean age at the time of index revision being 54.6 years (range, 36 to 65 years). All femurs had 2 or 3 fresh-frozen femoral strut allografts. The Harris hip score improved from a mean of 21 points before revision surgery to a mean of 83 points at the latest case review. Two femoral stems (4%) had aseptic loosening and were revised. All allografts were predictably united to the host femur. On the basis of favorable results at a mean follow-up of 10.5 years, we recommend, as a salvage procedure, the use of fully porous-coated cementless femoral stems and strut allografts in revision surgery of the hip for massive femoral bone loss.     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的：分析全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的病因和治疗结果．探讨其治疗方法。方法：回顾性研究自1998年12月-2003年3月治疗并随访观察的11例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者，男8例，女3例，平均年龄为56岁(43-75岁)，采用Vancouver分型，A型2例，B2型7例．B3型1例，C型1例。采用非手术治疗5例；手术治疗6例，其中1例为非手术治疗后骨折畸形愈合行翻修术。采用长柄假体翻修联合异体皮质骨板固定5例．其中使用非骨水泥型远端固定假体4例．使用骨水泥型假体1例。采用切开复位内固定治疗1例。结果：所有病例均获随访，平均随访25．6个月(7～50个月)。9例骨折愈合，平均愈合时间4个月(3-6个月)，2例骨折未愈合。均为非手术治疗病例，手术治疗6例骨折均愈合。至目前为止，7例假体稳定，1例翻修术后出现连续的影像学透亮线．3例假体松动，假体稳定的患者功能好于假体松动者．假体稳定患者的Harris评分平均91分。所有异体皮质骨板在1年内均与宿主骨整台．没有异体皮质骨板骨折发生。结论：假体稳定的A型骨折可以采用非手术治疗。对于B1型和C型骨折，如无手术禁忌证，应行切开复位内固定术。对于假体松动的骨折患者，使用长柄远端固定非骨水混型假体联合异体皮质骨板是最佳的治疗方法。     

Metadiaphysäre Femurdefektrekonstruktion mit kortikalen Strut-Allografts bei periprothetischen Knochendefekten

Objective

Biological augmentation and stabilization of high-grade bone defects with structural allografts from donor femur halfs.

Indications

Severe bone defects with aseptic loosening of hip prosthesis, periprosthetic femoral fracture or non-union, possibly even in cases of a healed infection.

Contraindications

Local or systemic infection.

Surgical technique

The two modeled strut allografts are temporary fixed epiperiostal anterolateral and -medial with wire cerclages, while protecting the vascular supplying linea aspera of the femur. With the thus stabilized femur, the leg can be placed in the four-position in order to prepare the medullary canal of the revision prosthesis. Finally, the uncemented revision prosthesis is hammered in under successive tightening of the wire cerclages. With this “cracking technique”, stem is stabilized and the grafts have repositioning, augmentative, and supportive function.

Postoperative management

Partial weight-bearing postoperatively for 12 weeks. X-ray control during surgery, 10 days postoperatively, after 6 and 12 weeks and every 1–2 years.

Results

In four different studies, 123 patients were stabilized from December 1991 to June 2011 due to an extensive periprosthetic femoral bone defect and/or periprosthetic fracture, refracture, or non-union with strut allografts. After an average follow-up of 3.8 years (range 0.3–11 years), the average Harris Hip Score was 80.8 (range 44–100). During this time, there was 1 refracture, 103 stable stems, 20 fibrous stable stems, 9 patients with low graft resorption, and 122 patients with radiographic healing of the strut allografts based on classification according to Emerson et al. (Clin Orthop Relat Res 285:35–44, 1992).     

Management of Vancouver type B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using an uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem prosthesis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of femoral revision using an uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stems with or without onlay strut allografts in the treatment of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 17 cases of periprosthetic femoral fracture (eight B2 and nine B3) treated with the uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Harris Hip Score and Barthel ADL index. Radiological evaluations were conducted using Beals and Towers’ criteria. Any complication during the follow-up period was recorded.

Results

The average follow-up period was 41.7 ± 31.08 (range, 15–132) months. The average Harris Hip Score was 68.2 ± 18.4 (range, 32–100), and the average Barthel ADL index was 80.1 ± 19.75 (range, 30–100) points at the final follow-up. All fractures were united, and a good graft consolidation was achieved in 5 of 9 cases. There was femoral stem subsidence in 4 cases less than 10 mm without an evidence of loosening both radiologically and clinically. The radiological results using Beals and Towers’ criteria were excellent in eight hips, good in five and poor in four.

Conclusions

An uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem together with or without onlay strut allografts provides a good fracture stability that promotes fracture healing and offers a successful solution for the management of Vancouver type B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures.     

Grafting for periprosthetic femoral fractures: strut, impaction or femoral replacement

Peri-prosthetic fractures are technically demanding to treat, as they require the skills of revision arthroplasty as well as those of trauma surgery. [Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:857-65.] reporting on 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures found that the annual incidence varied between 0.045% and 0.13% for all THAs performed in Sweden and that the accumulated incidence for the primary hip arthroplasties was 0.4% while for the revision arthroplasties was 2.1% [Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:857-65.]. The elderly population is particularly vulnerable to low energy periprosthetic fractures attributed to osteopenia or osteoporosis leaving limited reconstruction options to the hip revision surgeon. Bone grafting in the form of autograft has well recognized limitations and allograft represents the gold standard of bone augmentation in the majority of the cases. Allograft can be used as morselised in the form of impaction grafting, reconstructing the bone from within out, or in the form of structural allograft. In the latter case, strut onlay plates or whole proximal femoral allografts can be used to augment the deficient bone or to totally replace it respectively. Immune reaction and disease transmission along with delayed revascularization of the cortical allograft can cause failure of the construct in the long term; however, the results to date from their use are promising. We here present an overview of the literature on the use of available bone grafts in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.