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.     

Periprosthetic fractures with extensive bone loss treated with onlay strut allografts

We reviewed a consecutive series of 19 patients with comminuted periprosthetic fractures, loosening of the femoral stem (Vancouver type B3) and significant loss of bone stock (Paprosky type III and IV). Sixteen porous-coated long stems and three Exeter stems, all with impaction grafting, were used. Large femoral onlay strut allografts were applied to maintain fracture reduction and improve stability. There was one early re-fracture at the tip of the femoral stem. Eighteen fractures healed without deformity and shortening. At the last follow-up at mean 3.7 (2.0-7.5) years, the mean Harris hip score was 76.4 (57.5-92.0). There was ingrowth of all strut grafts and significant augmentation of periprosthetic bone.     

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.     

Intramedullary strut substitution and impaction allografting cemented revision for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture in a severely compromised femur

Revision for the treatment of a B3 periprosthetic femoral fracture often requires proximal femoral allograft arthroplasty in physiologically young or tumor prostheses in elderly patients. Extramedullary strut allograft augmentation can only be used when the host femur is structurally adequate for the insertion of the revision stem (periprosthetic femoral fractures type B2) and appears to be an attractive biological concept as early incorporation to the host bone results in a sound biomechanical construct. We report here the simultaneous use of whole femur intramedullary strut substitution along with an extramedullary strut graft placement, with impaction allografting revision to a long cemented femoral prosthesis, to augment the deficient metadiaphyseal bone stock (Paprosky type IV) for the treatment of a complex type B3 periprosthetic femoral fracture.     

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.     

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.     

Reinforcement of deficient femur with inlay strut grafts in revision hip arthroplasty: a small series

Failure of the femoral component due to severe loss of femoral bone is an important long-term complication of total hip arthroplasty. We treated four patients with a type IV femoral defect (Paprosky classification) because of aseptic and septic loosening. To enhance bone stock and create a stable prosthetic reconstruction we used femoral allografts as inlay strut grafts alone or combined with onlay strut grafts and impaction grafting. At a mean follow-up of 11 years all four patients presented good or excellent results with Harris Hip Score between 86 and 95 points. Radiologically, no migration of the stems were found and the struts showed signs of incorporation. Inlay strut grafts are a reliable method for bone reconstruction of deficient femoral bone stock in failed total hip replacement.     

Locking compression plate fixation of Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures

BACKGROUND: Fractures occurring at or near the distal tip of a hip prosthesis with a stable femoral stem (Vancouver type-B fractures) are associated with many complications because of the inherently unstable fracture pattern. Locking compression plates use screws that lock into the plate allowing multiple points of unicortical fixation. Such unicortical fixation may lower the risk of damage to the cement mantle or a stable femoral stem during the treatment of a periprosthetic femoral fracture. The purpose of this study was to analyze clinically and radiographically a group of patients with a Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture treated with open reduction and internal fixation with use of a locking compression plate. METHODS: Fourteen consecutive patients (fourteen hips) with a Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture were treated with a locking compression plate. There were five men and nine women with an average age of sixty-eight years at the time of fracture. All of the fractures occurred after a total hip arthroplasty performed with cement, and eleven of the arthroplasties were revisions. In addition to the plate, cortical strut allografts were used to stabilize five fractures. The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: The average duration of follow-up was twenty months. Eight fractures healed uneventfully at an average of 5.4 months. Three treatment constructs failed with fracture of the plate within twelve months after surgery. An additional three constructs also failed because of plate pullout. All failures except one occurred in constructs in which a cortical strut allograft had not been utilized. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the high failure rate in this series of patients, locking compression plates do not appear to offer advantages over other types of plates in the treatment of type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Despite the potential to preserve the cement mantle, the locked screws did not appear to offer good pullout resistance in this fracture type. We believe that supplementation with strut allografts should be used routinely if this type of locking compression plate is selected to treat these 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.     

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。     

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。     

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.     

Cortical strut allografts in salvage revision arthroplasty: Surgical technique and clinical outcomes

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to present our clinical outcomes and surgical technique in strut allografts preparation using staggered holes to enhance osteointegration and demineralised bone matrix (DBM) as an adjunct to cortical strut allografts in salvage revision arthroplasty patients.MethodsRetrospective consecutive series of patients who required strut allograft femoral reconstructions with minimum 2 years follow up between 2012 and 2018. Frozen washed irradiated, cortical struts were used and prepared adding 2 mm staggered drill holes along the length of the strut and applying DBM paste on the graft-host interface. Outcome measures included radiographic strut union, graft resorption, infection and complications.Results15 patients included; 3 males and 12 females with median age 72 years (range 60–93). All had significant bony defects (Paprosky III/IV in 12 cases including 3 cases of periprosthetic hip fractures and further 3 cases of periprosthetic knee fractures around revision hinged implants). At final follow up, median 3.8 years (range 2.7–7.2), 14/15 (93.3%) struts had united at a median 6 months (range 5–8), complete incorporation with cortical round-off was seen at median 12 months (range 8–48) in 12/15 (80%) struts, 2/15 (13.3%) show radiographic evidence of proximal minimal graft resorptions although the remainder of the strut had integrated and were asymptomatic. There were no cases of infection.ConclusionsUse of strut allografts helps to reconstruct bone defects, restore bone stock, and provide stable fixation for complex patterns of periprosthetic fractures around hip/knee implants and salvage revision cases with 93.3% union rate at median 6 months.     

Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a modular distally cemented stem

PURPOSE: To assess the treatment outcome of revision hip arthroplasty for Vancouver type B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures using a modular distally cemented stem. METHODS: 22 men and 14 women (37 hips) aged 66 to 79 (mean, 70) years underwent revision hip arthroplasty for Vancouver type B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. The indication for surgery was periprosthetic fracture with stem loosening and loss of proximal bone stock. The patients were referred from other hospitals after previous surgeries had failed: 8 with 3 previous surgeries, 19 with 2, and 9 with one. Using a transtrochanteric approach, the existing prosthesis was removed and a modular proximal femoral replacement stem was inserted, bypassing the area of proximal femoral fracture and bone loss. The stem was distally cemented. Patients were immobilised within 48 hours of surgery. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for a mean of 14 (range, 8-18) years. The mean Harris hip score improved from 29 (range, 5-40) to 78 (range, 56-88); 24 patients attained excellent or good scores (>80), 10 attained fair, and 2 attained poor scores. The mean healing time was 7 (range, 6-14) months; there was no non-union. Improvement in proximal bone stock was noted on serial radiographs. None of the stems had cement fracture or migration, requiring revision. Two (5%) of the patients had dislocations. CONCLUSION: Vancouver type B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures can be successfully treated with a distally cemented modular proximal femoral replacement prosthesis.     

Management of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures With Severe Bone Loss Using Impaction Bone Grafting Technique

We present a technique of femoral impaction grafting used for the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Seven patients with femoral fractures with compromise of the femoral isthmus were treated with femoral component revision using the impaction grafting bone technique. The average age was 64 years (range, 44-72 years), and 2 patients required mesh augmentation at the time of surgery. The average follow-up for this group of patients was 56 months (range, 39-92 months). Radiographic evaluation revealed healed fractures in all patients and no evidence of implant loosening at a mean of 56 months (range, 39-92 months). There were no cases of infections or dislocations in this series. Impaction grafting technique can be useful in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures when bone loss and canal geometry preclude the use of fully coated femoral components.     

High union rates of locking compression plating with cortical strut allograft for type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures

Purpose

Unified classification system (UCS) type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures are associated with many complications, and management decisions continue to be controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of UCS type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by locking compression plating with strut allograft augmentation.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 17 consecutive UCS type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation using a lateral locking compression plate supplemented with an anterior cortical strut allograft. There was one man and 16 women with an average age of 74 years (range, 57–92 years). All had a cementless hip arthroplasty, and eight of the arthroplasties were revisions.

Results

The mean duration of follow-up was 28 months (range, 12–74 months). All 17 fractures healed successfully at a mean of 20 weeks (range, 12–30 weeks). The mean post-operative Harris hip score was 86 points (range, 77–95 points). No mechanical complications such as failure of plate or screws and malalignment were noted. According to the graft-remodeling classification of Emerson et al., a partial bridging was observed in nine and a complete bridging in eight. Two patients required a removal of the plate due to irritation of the iliotibial band. No femoral stem loosening or deep infection was observed.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that open reduction and internal fixation of UCS type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures using a lateral locking compression plate supplemented with anterior cortical strut allograft provides adequate mechanical stability of fracture fixation and enhances the fracture healing.

     

锁定钢板结合钛缆环扎内固定治疗Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折

目的探讨锁定钢板结合钛缆环扎内固定治疗Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2008-06—2013-01采用锁定钢板结合钛缆环扎内固定治疗的8例Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折。每次随访时行影像学检查和临床疗效评估,记录术中、术后并发症。结果所有患者均顺利通过手术,均获得平均24（12~48）个月随访。骨折均获得愈合,愈合时间平均16（12~24）周。术后无感染、骨折不愈合、骨折畸形愈合、复位丢失、内固定失效和假体松动等并发症发生。末次随访时髋关节功能Harris评分：优5例,良2例,可1例。结论采用锁定钢板结合钛缆环扎内固定治疗Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折是一种合理而有效的方法,具有创伤小、固定牢靠等优点,可获得满意的临床疗效。     

The management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip replacements

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in frequency and in complexity. They occur intra-operatively, or post-operatively, when they are frequently associated with loosening, with or without osteolysis. Periprosthetic femoral fractures usually occur at low energy levels, either after falls or spontaneously during activities of daily living. At present, the Vancouver classification system probably comes closest to the ideal, as it considers the fracture configuration, the stability of the implant and the quality of the bone stock. When the stem is stable, open reduction and internal fixation is suggested. Several authors have used strut grafts for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures, with good results. If the stem is loose, or revision is indicated for other reasons, it is generally advisable to by-pass the most distal fracture line with a longer stem prosthesis by at least two femoral diameters. Augmentation of this intra-medullary fixation with an external cortical strut to improve rotational stability and/or internally with impaction allografting to compensate for bone defects is also advisable. Vigilant post-operative clinical and radiological assessment following total hip replacement should identify those with recurrent dislocation, loosening, subsidence and osteolysis. These patients are at greatest risk of developing femoral periprosthetic fractures.     

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.     

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。