Early Operative Intervention Is Associated With Better Patient Survival in Patients With Intracapsular Femur Fractures But Not Extracapsular Fractures

The purpose of this study was to determine patients' survival after undergoing an early or delayed operation. We retrospectively assessed 1849 files of patients operated for proximal femoral fracture, divided into two diagnostic groups: intracapsular (n = 640) and extracapsular (n = 1209). 1163 (63%) were treated within 48 h from hospital admission and 686 (37%) were treated > 48 h afterwards. Delayed operation in patients with intracapsular fractures was associated with a 1.8-fold excess risk for 1-year mortality (HR = 1.83, P = 0.008), while no effect was observed for patients with extracapsular fractures. Males had a higher HR for mortality in both diagnostic groups. Early surgical intervention is beneficial for intra-capsular femoral fractures; male gender and a high ASA score are associated with an increased mortality hazard risk.     

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.     

Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur: Is Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Distal Femoral Replacement Superior?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to distal femoral replacement (DFR) for treatment of displaced periprosthetic distal femur fractures.MethodsWe identified 72 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up following a displaced periprosthetic distal femur fracture: 50 were treated with ORIF and 22 with DFR. Outcomes were assessed with multivariate regression analysis and include Knee Society Scores (KSS), infection rates, revision incidence, and mortality.ResultsPatients treated with DFR had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.2 vs 3.8; P = .006). The mean postoperative KSS were similar between groups, but the Knee Society Functional Scores were higher in the ORIF group (P = .01). Six ORIF patients (12%) and 3 DFR patients (14%) underwent a revision surgery (P = .1). In the ORIF group, 3 revisions were associated with periprosthetic infection, and 3 revisions occurred for aseptic nonunion. In the DFR group, 1 infection was treated with irrigation and debridement, and 2 cases of patellar maltracking resulted in 1 liner exchange with soft tissue release and 1 femoral revision for malrotation. More patients in the ORIF group required repeat revisions, with twice as many total revisions (P < .001). Six ORIF patients and 7 DFR patients died within 2 years (P = .26).ConclusionThe Knee Society Functional Score favored ORIF, but the total incidence of revision was higher in the ORIF cohort. Given the high mortality and the substantial risk of reoperation in both groups, additional studies are needed regarding the prevention of and optimal treatment for patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures.     

Revision Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Revision Hip System in Cases of Severe Bone Loss

We sought to identify outcomes of the Restoration Modular Hip System in cases of severe femoral bone stock deficiency. We performed a retrospective review of 55 revTHAs with a mean follow-up of 32 months (24–60 months). Outcomes included the WOMAC and HHS. Preoperative bone loss was categorized as Paprosky 3A (n = 13), 3B (n = 14), and 4 (n = 17). Periprosthetic fractures were classified as Vancouver B2 (n = 6) and B3 (n = 5). 53 of 55 stems were in situ at time of final review. WOMAC improved from 46 ± 18 to 70 ± 22 and HHS improved from 47 ± 15 to 78 ± 15. Complications were identified in 9 patients, which included dislocation (3), subsidence (2), infection (2), and periprosthetic fracture (2). In cases of significant proximal femoral bone deficiency, this stem demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes with good results at short-term follow up.     

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.     

No Difference Between Hemiarthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Pathologic Femoral Neck Fractures

BackgroundHemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been widely discussed as treatment options for displaced osteoporotic femoral neck fractures. Pathologic femoral neck fractures from primary or metastatic tumors are comparatively rare and poorly investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes, complications, and perioperative survival for HA and THA in the treatment of pathologic femoral neck fractures of neoplastic etiology.MethodsA multicenter retrospective cohort study identified patients with pathologic femoral neck fractures treated with HA or THA from 2005 to 2018. Demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Charlson comorbidity index, Dorr classification, histopathologic diagnosis, and surgical data were compared. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, estimated blood loss, length of stay, periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.ResultsThere were 116 patients with HA and 48 patients with THA, with no differences between groups with regard to American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Charlson comorbidity index, or Dorr classification. There were no differences between HA and THA in the primary outcome of reoperation (5.2% vs 4.2%, P = 1.00) or secondary outcomes of perioperative 90-day overall mortality (30.2% vs 25.0%, P = .51), estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay, discharge location, periprosthetic joint infection, periprosthetic fracture, or preoperative or postoperative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.ConclusionsBoth HA and THA are viable options for the treatment of patients with pathologic femoral neck fractures and demonstrated no differences in reoperations, complications, perioperative 90-day mortality, or functional outcome scores.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Effect of Fracture Type,Treatment, and Surgeon Training on Reoperation After Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

BackgroundThe treatment of Vancouver B periprosthetic proximal femur fractures (PPFFs) is complex due to the overlap between arthroplasty and orthopedic trauma techniques. Our purpose was to assess the effects of fracture type, treatment difference, and surgeon training on the risk of reoperation in Vancouver B PPFF.MethodsA collaborative research consortium of 11 centers retrospectively reviewed PPFFs from 2014 to 2019 to determine the effects of variations in surgeon expertise, fracture type, and treatment on surgical reoperation. Surgeons were classified as per fellowship training, fractures using the Vancouver classification, and treatment as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or revision total hip arthroplasty with or without ORIF. Regression analyses were performed with reoperation as the primary outcome.ResultsFracture type (Vancouver B3 versus B1: odds ratio [OR]: 5.70) was an independent risk factor for reoperation. No differences were found in reoperation rates with treatment (ORIF versus revision: OR 0.92, P = .883). Treatment by a nonarthroplasty-trained surgeon versus an arthroplasty specialist led to higher odds of reoperation in all Vancouver B fracture (OR: 2.87, P = .023); however, no significant differences were seen in the Vancouver B2 group alone (OR: 2.61, P = .139). Age was a significant risk factor for reoperation in all Vancouver B fractures (OR: 0.97, P = .004) and in the B2 fractures alone (OR: 0.96, P = .007).ConclusionOur study suggests that age and fracture type affect reoperation rates. Treatment type did not affect reoperation rates and the effect of surgeon training is unclear.     

Intra-Operative Periprosthetic Fractures Associated With Press Fit Stems in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty : Incidence,Management, and Outcomes

The purpose of this study is to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of periprosthetic fractures associated with the insertion of press-fit stems during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Immediate and six week post-operative radiographs from 634 stemmed implants (307 femoral, 327 tibial) from 420 consecutive revision TKAs were reviewed. Sixteen tibial (4.9%) and 3 femoral (1%) fractures (combined incidence 3.0%) were identified. All healed uneventfully without operative intervention, with no evidence of implant loosening at a mean of 23 months (range 12 to 47 months). The technique of tightly press fitting stems into the diaphysis is associated with a small rate (3%) of periprosthetic fractures; most were non or minimally displaced, all healed uneventfully with non-operative management and were not associated with implant loosening.     

Nationwide Analysis of Lower Extremity Periprosthetic Fractures

BackgroundAlthough the annual incidence of primary total joint arthroplasty is increasing, trends in the annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures have not been established. This study aimed to define the annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures in the United States.MethodsInpatient admission data for 60,887 surgically treated lower extremity periprosthetic fractures between 2006 and 2015 were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample database. The annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures was defined as the number of new cases per year and presented as a population-adjusted rate per 100,000 US individuals. Univariable methods were used for trend analysis and comparisons between groups.ResultsThe national annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures presented as a population-adjusted rate of new cases per year peaked in 2008 (2.72; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.39-3.05), remained stable from 2010 (1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.86) through 2013 (1.67; 95% CI, 1.55-1.8) and increased in 2014 (1.99; 95% CI, 1.85-2.13) and 2015 (2.47; 95% CI, 2.31-2.62). The proportion of femoral periprosthetic fractures managed with total knee arthroplasty revision remained stable (P_trend = .97) with an increase in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision (P_trend < .001) and concurrent decrease in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (P_trend < .001). Revision THA was significantly more costly than revision total knee arthroplasty (P = .004), and both were significantly more costly than ORIF (P < .001 for both).ConclusionThe annual incidence of periprosthetic fractures remained relatively stable throughout our study period. The proportion of periprosthetic fractures managed with revision THA increased, whereas ORIF decreased. Our findings are encouraging considering the significant burden an increase in periprosthetic fracture incidence would present to the health care system in terms of both expense and patient morbidity.     

Risk Factors for Intraoperative Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Patients with Hip Dysplasia Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty with Uncemented Prostheses

ObjectivesTo determine the potential risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsThis was a retrospective study. Patients who were diagnosed with DDH and undergoing THA (by artificial joint replacement) at our hospital from January 1999 to December 2019 were included in this study. Clinical and radiological factors were obtained from their medical records, such as age, sex, Crowe classification, morphological features of proximal femur, and features of surgical procedure. The outcome of interest was the occurrence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture, which was recorded and classified according to the Vancouver classification system. According to the fracture status, the patients were divided into two groups: the fracture group and the non‐fracture group. Multivariate logistic regression model was built to identify the risk factors for these fractures.ResultsA total of 1252 hips were finally included. Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures were identified in 62 hips. The incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH undergoing THA was 4.95%. There were 22 patients (proportion = 35.48%, incidence = 1.76%) with Type A fractures, 38 (proportion = 61.29%, incidence = 3.04%) with Type B fractures, and two (proportion = 3.23%, incidence = 0.16%) with Type C fractures. Six independent risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures were identified: osteoporosis (OR = 3.434; 95% CI, 1.963–6.007), previous surgical history (OR = 4.797; 95% CI, 2.446–9.410), Dorr Type A canal (OR = 3.025; 95% CI, 1.594–5.738), retained femoral neck length (OR = 1.121; 95% CI, 1.043–1.204), implanted metaphyseal‐diaphyseal fixation stems (OR = 3.208; 95% CI, 1.562–6.591), and implanted stem with anteversion design (OR = 2.916; 95% CI, 1.473–5.770).ConclusionsThe overall incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH undergoing THA was 4.95%, which was at a moderate level compared to patients with other diseases undergoing THA. Six independent risk factors were identified: osteoporosis, previous surgical history, Dorr Type A canal, insufficient neck osteotomy level, implantation of metaphyseal‐diaphyseal fixation stem, and implantation of a stem with an anteversion design. Comprehending these risk factors might help surgeons prevent the occurrence of these intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients with DDH.     

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.     

Predictors of Functional Recovery Following Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures

Background

Treatment options for periprosthetic distal femur fractures include open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and distal femoral replacement (DFR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the complications, and functional recovery (ambulatory status, living situation, mortality) in patients undergoing operative treatment (DFR and ORIF) of periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

Reverse LISS plates for unstable proximal femoral fractures

The best treatment for unstable proximal femoral fractures is controversial. In this prospective study, we assessed the outcomes of reverse less invasive stabilisation system (LISS) plates for treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures that are expected to be difficult to nail.From April 2004 to January 2007, 20 patients with unstable proximal femoral fractures that were assessed to be difficult to nail were managed with reverse less invasive stabilisation system-distal femur (LISS-DF) plates, which included (1) subtrochanteric fractures with extension into the piriform fossa, (2) short skeletons with narrow femoral canals, (3) adolescents with open physes and (4) severely bowed or deformed femurs. These patients were enrolled in this study. There were 11 females and nine males, with a median age of 58 years (range, 14-95 years).The average follow-up period was 24 (range, 12-32) months. Functional recovery (Parker and Palmer mobility score), pain, bony union, varus deformity, implant failure and leg length discrepancy were assessed. The fractures united at a median of 7 months (range, 3-15 months) postoperatively. Parker and Palmer mobility scores were 9 points for 17 patients and 6 points for three patients. Pain was absent in 15, mild in three, and moderate in two patients. Patients with poor quality of reduction were more likely to have pain results (p = 0.009). Although patients with advanced age were not more likely to have pain results, they were more likely to have ‘delayed union’ radiographic results (p = 0.033). Two limbs were shortened by 1.5 and 2 cm, respectively.Reverse LISS plate fixation led to complete union of unstable proximal femoral fractures without additional procedures. The surgical technique was simple and safe. We recommend considering the use of this locked-plate device as the alternative management of unstable proximal femoral fractures that are unsuitable for nailing procedures.     

Custom-Made Cement-Linked Mega Prostheses: A Salvage Solution For Complex Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

Periprosthetic femoral fractures with long stem implants, poor bone stock and loosening pose a considerable surgical challenge. We describe a reconstruction technique using a custom-made mega-prosthesis, cement-linked to the femoral stem of a well-fixed existing implant. Clinical and radiological outcomes were assessed at our tertiary referral centre. There were 15 patients with a periprosthetic femoral fracture: 5 proximal and 10 distal femoral arthroplasties linked to existing femoral stems. The survival rate was 93.3% at a mean follow-up of 5.3 years (0.5–19.3) with 1 revision. We present a salvage technique with good intermediate-term outcomes for highly selected patients with complex periprosthetic femoral fractures, as another option to conventional fixation methods. Specifically, it allows immediate weight bearing and avoids some of the morbidity of total femoral arthroplasty or amputation.     

Utility of Trephine Reamers in Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Powered trephines used over a femoral component to disrupt the bone component interface can yield acceptable clinical and radiographic outcomes while minimizing direct mechanical injury and indirect thermal necrosis. Thirty-six patients required trephining for fractured stems (16), infection (8), malposition (7), modular junction failure (4), and acetabular exposure (1). Harris Hip Scores (HHS), radiographic healing, and complications were assessed at a follow-up of 50.01 mo. Mean HHS increased from 46.61 preoperatively to 87.78 postoperatively (p < .0001). Two patients suffered spontaneous postoperative periprosthetic fractures in the region of the trephined bone at 3 mo and 4 mo postoperatively. Despite undergoing ORIF with locked plates, they both re-fractured with necrotic bone observed at the time of revision. There is a 5.6% incidence of femoral shaft fractures near the region of trephined bone within 1 year of surgery. Given the location of these fractures, thermal necrosis may have occurred and consideration should be given to distally bypassing the region of the femur that has been trephined.     

Peri-prosthetic fractures: A prevention and treatment algorithm

Risk factors for periprosthetic hip fracture include female gender, increased age, and higher ASA class. Patients with periprosthetic fractures have higher mortality, greater length of stay, and are discharged more often to extended care facilities than the general population of THA patients. Periprosthetic hip fractures can be classified based on fracture location, implant stability, and bone quality. Fractures around a stable stem can be treated with ORIF while those resulting in loss of stem stability require stem revision. Segmental replacement of the proximal femur may be necessary if proximal bone is too poor to support a revision component.     

Predictors of Perioperative Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Associated With the Direct Anterior Approach to Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundThere is an association between intraoperative and postoperative femoral fractures and the direct anterior approach (DAA) to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study is to identify risk factors for Vancouver B fractures and to establish a predictable timeline for when these occur.MethodsWe retrospectively identified patients with Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fractures (n = 49) after 11,509 elective primary cementless THA procedures through the DAA between 2012 and 2018 at a single institution. Fracture patients were matched to nonfracture patients (n = 267) by date of surgery and surgeon. Clinical and radiographic factors were collected for multivariable analysis to identify predictors of fracture.ResultsPeriprosthetic Vancouver B femoral fracture incidence was 0.4%. 48 (98%) fractures were postoperative. Fractures occurred at an average of 44 days after surgery (range: 1 to 653 days) with >85% of fractures occurring in the first 6 weeks postoperatively. Significant variables predictive of fracture included >3 degrees valgus and >5 degrees varus coronal stem malalignment, Dorr B and C femoral geometry, lower canal flare index (2.75 vs 3.20), advanced age, increased comorbidities, greater stem canal fill, and right-sided procedures.ConclusionDespite an overall low rate of Vancouver B perioperative periprosthetic femoral fractures, it is a devastating complication that typically presents within the first 6 weeks after DAA THA surgery. The risk is increased in patients with unfavorable proximal femoral geometry, coronal stem malalignment, advanced age, increased comorbidities, and right-sided procedures.     

Time to surgery and 30-day morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures

Background and aim

The management of femoral periprosthetic fractures following hip replacement surgery is a complex and challenging situation. Whilst the early complications for both primary hip arthroplasty and proximal femoral fracture surgery have been widely documented, there is a paucity of published data regarding early outcomes following periprosthetic fracture surgery.Delay to surgery for native proximal femoral fractures has been clearly documented as a predictor towards adverse outcome. This study therefore aims to correlate the timing of operative intervention with the complication rate following periprosthetic fracture surgery. In addition, the study aims to identify further factors in the perioperative period that positively predict a poor postoperative outcome.

Methods

Sixty patients who were operatively managed for a femoral implant periprosthetic fracture were identified and each case assessed retrospectively.

Results and conclusion

There was an overall complication rate of 45% including a 30-day mortality of 10%. An abbreviated mental test score of 8 out of 10 or less and a delay to surgery of >72 h were found to be significant risk factors for adverse outcome. Both the patient cohort in this study and the predictors for poor postoperative outcome were comparable to those for native proximal femoral fractures.     

An international,cross-sectional survey of the management of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasties

IntroductionThe incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasties is increasing. Fractures around a stable implant stem (Vancouver type B1) are among the most common of these fractures. Various fixation strategies for Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic fractures have been reported in the literature; however, little high-level evidence exists. This study was designed to determine the current management strategies and opinions among orthopaedic surgeons treating Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures, and to evaluate the need for a large prospective randomized controlled trial for the management of these injuries.MethodsOrthopaedic surgeon members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA), and the Hip Society were invited to participate in a 51-item web-based survey surrounding the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip replacements, as well as the perceived need for future research in this area. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.ResultsFor Vancouver type B1 fractures, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locked plating was favoured slightly over ORIF with cable plating ± cortical strut allograft (51.1% versus 45.5%). When compared to cable plating with cortical strut allograft, respondents believed that isolated locked plating resulted in lower nonunion and reoperation rates, but similar infection and malunion rates. Subgroup analyses revealed that practice type, surgeon age, case volume, and fellowship training influenced surgeons’ management of periprosthetic femoral fractures and beliefs regarding complications. There is high demand for a large prospective randomized controlled trial for Vancouver type B1 fracture fixation.ConclusionsConsensus surrounding the management of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures is lacking, and there is a perceived need among orthopaedic surgeons for a large prospective randomized controlled trial in order to define the optimal management of these injuries.     

Early Post-operative Periprosthetic Femur Fracture in the Presence of a Non-cemented Tapered Wedge Femoral Stem

Non-cemented femoral fixation in hip arthroplasty has become the standard of practice in the USA. However, recent literature has brought attention to an increasing incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures with certain stem designs. This study examines reasons for early periprosthetic femur fractures in patients with a hip arthroplasty performed using a non-cemented tapered wedge stem design. A multivariate analysis using a matched-cohort design was performed to assess any potential risk factors that may predispose to such fractures. Six of 2,220 hips (0.3%) suffered a periprosthetic femur fracture within the first year after surgery; five of six were Vancouver Type B2. The average time to fracture was 9 weeks. This group of patients had a significantly higher canal–flare index and lower canal–calcar ratio. This complication may be preventable by having a better appreciation of the fit between the implant and the bone during pre-operative planning, with the goal of avoiding a proximal–distal mismatch.