Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 5/2013

01-07-2013 | Original Article

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

Authors: Kerem Canbora, Ozkan Kose, Atilla Polat, Faruk Aykanat, Mucahit Gorgec

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 20(7):857–865PubMedCrossRef
2.
Adolpson P, Jonsson U, Kalen R (1987) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 106(6):353–357CrossRef
3.
O’Shea K, Quinlan JF, Kutty S, Mulcahy D, Brady OH (2005) The use of uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral components in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87(12):1617–1621
4.
Dysart SH, Savory CG, Callaghan JJ (1989) Non-operative treatment of a post-operative fracture around an uncemented porous-coated femoral component. J Arthroplasty 4(2):187–190PubMedCrossRef
5.
Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMed
6.
Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:80–95PubMedCrossRef
7.
Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15:59–62PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mont MA, Maar DC (1994) Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty: a statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients. J Arthroplast 9:511–516CrossRef
9.
Harris WH, Crothers O, Indong O (1977) Total hip replacement and femoral head bone grafting for severe acetabular deficiency in adults. J Bone Jt Surg 59-A:752–759
10.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMed
11.
Malchau H, Karrholm J, Wang YX, Herberts P (1995) Accuracy of migration analysis in hip arthroplasty. Digitized and conventional radiography, compared to radiostereometry in 51 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 66(5):418–424PubMedCrossRef
12.
Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: an analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 327:238–246PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ko PS, Lam JJ, Tio MK, Lee OB, Ip FK (2003) Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fractures in geriatric patients. J Arthroplasty 18(4):446–452PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fink B, Grossmann A, Singer J (2011) Hip revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 and B3. J Orthop Trauma. Oct 18. [Epub ahead of print]
15.
Zaki SH, Sadiq S, Purbach B, Wroblewski BM (2007) Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a modular distally cemented stem. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15(2):163–166
16.
Wroblewski BM, Browne AO, Hodgkinson JP (1992) Treatment of the shaft of the femur in total hip arthroplasty by a combination of a Kuntscher nail and a modified cemented Charnley stem. Injury 23(4):225–227PubMedCrossRef
17.
Mulay S, Hassan T, Birtwistle S, Power R (2005) Management of types B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures by a tapered, fluted, and distally fixed stem. J Arthroplasty 20(6):751–756PubMedCrossRef
18.
Park MS, Lim YJ, Chung WC, Ham DH, Lee SH (2009) Management of periprosthetic femur fractures treated with distal fixation using a modular femoral stem using an anterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty 24(8):1270–1276PubMedCrossRef
19.
Wang JW, Wang CJ (2000) Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after hip arthroplasty: the clinical outcome using cortical strut allografts. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 8(1):27–31
20.
Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1999) The treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur using cortical onlay allograft struts. Orthop Clin North Am 30(2):249–257PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Management of Vancouver type B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using an uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem prosthesis
Authors
Kerem Canbora
Ozkan Kose
Atilla Polat
Faruk Aykanat
Mucahit Gorgec
Publication date
01-07-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1024-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 5/2013 Go to the issue

Original Article

Intramedullary nailing versus percutaneous locked plating of distal extra-articular tibial fractures: a retrospective study

Original Article

Preoperative grip strength measurement and duration of hospital stay in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty

Original Article

Is platelet-rich plasma able to enhance the results of arthroscopic microfracture in early osteoarthritis and cartilage lesion over 40 years of age?

Original Article

CT scan evaluation of glenoid component fixation: a prospective study of 27 minimally cemented shoulder arthroplasties

Original Article

Dislocated intra-articular femoral head fracture associated with fracture-dislocation of the hip and acetabulum: report of 12 cases and technical notes on surgical intervention

Original Article

Prevention of early bone loss around the prosthesis by administration of anti-osteoporotic agents and influences of collared and non-collared femoral stem prostheses on early periprosthetic bone loss