Periprosthetic femoral fracture as cause of early revision after short stem hip arthroplasty—a multicentric analysis
- 22 Downloads
The objective of this study was to analyze the prevalence and causes of early re-operation after hip replacement surgery using short bone-preserving stems in a large multicentre series. Specifically, we evaluated the clinical features of periprosthetic fractures occurring around short stems.
A total of 897 patients (1089 hips) who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty or bipolar hemiarthroplasty from January 2011 to February 2015 using short bone-preserving femoral stems were recruited. Mean patient age was 57.4 years (range, 18–97 years), with a male ratio of 49.7% (541/1089). Re-operation for any reason within two years was used as an endpoint. The incidence and clinical characteristics of the periprosthetic femoral fractures were also recorded. Mean follow-up period was 5.1 years (range, 2–7.9 years).
Early re-operation for any reason was identified in 16 (1.5%) of 1089 hips. The main reason for re-operation was periprosthetic femoral fracture, which accounted for eight (50%) of the 16 re-operations. The overall incidence of periprosthetic femoral fracture at two years was 1.1% (12/1089). According to the Vancouver classification, two fractures were AG type and the other ten were B1 type. Advanced age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologist grade, femur morphology of Dorr type C, and the use of a calcar-loading stem increased the risk for periprosthetic femoral fracture.
Periprosthetic femoral fracture was the major reason for re-operation after hip replacement surgery using short bone-preserving stems accounting for 50% (8/16) of re-operations two years post-operatively, but did not seem to deteriorate survivorship of implanted prostheses.
KeywordsReoperation Periprosthetic femoral fracture Short stem Hip replacement
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the institutional review board
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 8.Thien TM, Chatziagorou G, Garellick G, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Makela K, Overgaard S, Pedersen A, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Karrholm J (2014) Periprosthetic femoral fracture within two years after total hip replacement: analysis of 437,629 operations in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register association database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:e167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Dorr LD, Absatz M, Gruen TA, Saberi MT, Doerzbacher JF (1990) Anatomic porous replacement hip arthroplasty: first 100 consecutive cases. Semin Arthroplast 1:77–86Google Scholar
- 14.Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res:17–27Google Scholar
- 16.Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res:80–95Google Scholar
- 21.Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, McMinn DJ (2008) A clinicoradiologic study of the Birmingham mid-head resection device. Orthopedics 31Google Scholar