Reconstructed the bone stock after femoral bone loss in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures using cortical strut allograft and impacted cancellous allograft
- 150 Downloads
This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of reconstructing bone stock in Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) using an impacted cancellous allograft cortical or combined with cortical strut allograft.
Patients and methods
We retrospectively assessed 39 Vancouver-type B3 periprosthetic fractures in 39 patients. Having different bone defects in the femur, 20 patients were treated with intramedullary impacted cancellous allograft, and 19 patients were treated with impacted cancellous allograft combined with cortical strut allograft. The median follow-up time was 58 months.
Thirty-three patients completed the follow-up as scheduled, and three of them underwent re-operation (9.1%, 3/33). The last evaluated mean hip Harris score was 81.8; WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function scores were 82.3, 79.0, and 81.3, respectively. The satisfaction score was 86.6, and the SF-12 mental and physical scores were 40.4 and 51.1, respectively, for all patients. These outcomes were without significant difference between the two treatment groups (p > 0.05). The facture union was achieved in all the hips (100%). The stem was fixed with bone ingrowth in 24 patients and with fibrous fixation in eight, while stem fixation was not achieved for the remaining patient. The stem subsided less than 3 mm in 23 patients and 3–5 mm in nine patients. One patient had > 5 mm subsidence. The femoral bone stock was improved in 18 patients and remained unchanged in 14 patients; only one patient suffered a diminished bone stock. The radiographic assessment outcomes exhibited little difference between the two treatment groups (p > 0.05). Osseous union of the cortical strut to the host femur occurred in six patients with partial union and ten with complete union. There was moderate and mild graft resorption in three and 13 hips, respectively.
The use of impacted cancellous allograft and cortical strut allograft to reconstruct bone stock can provide reliable options and satisfactory results.
KeywordsPeriprosthetic femoral fractures Total hip arthroplasty Bone loss Revision
This study was supported by the Project of International Cooperation of Sichuan Province of China (2016HH0071).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the institutional review board.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Ethical review committee statement
The study was approved by the Clinical Trials and Biomedical Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, and written informed consents were obtained from all participants.
- 2.Gillam MH, Ryan P, Graves SE, et al (2010) Competing risks survival analysis applied to data from the Australian Orthopaedic AssociationNational Joint Replacement Registry. Acta Orthop 81:548–555Google Scholar
- 3.Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785Google Scholar
- 7.Wu CC, Au MK, Wu SS, Lin LC (1999) Risk factors for postoperative femoral fracture in cementless hip arthroplasty. J Formos Med Assoc 98:190–194Google Scholar
- 11.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 141:17Google Scholar
- 14.Wu HB, Yan SG, Wu LD, He RX, Wang XH, Dai XS (2009) Combined use of extensively porous coated femoral components with onlay cortical strut allografts in revision of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Chin Med J 122:2612–2615Google Scholar
- 15.Barden B, von Knoch M, Fitzek JG, Löer F (2003) Periprosthetic fractures with extensive bone loss treated with onlay strut allografts. Int Orthop 27:164–167Google Scholar
- 21.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840Google Scholar
- 23.Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN (2011) The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2011:591253Google Scholar
- 25.Engh Jr CA, McAuley JP, Engh Sr C (1999) Surgical approaches for revision total hip replacement surgery: the anterior trochanteric slide and the extended conventional osteotomy. Instr Course Lect 48:3Google Scholar
- 28.Gross AE, Allen G, Lavoie G (1993) Revision arthroplasty using allograft bone. Instr Course Lect 42:363–380Google Scholar
- 29.Haddad FS, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Hutchison CR, Gross AE (2000) Femoral bone loss in patients managed with revision hip replacement: results of circumferential allograft replacement. Instr Course Lect 49:147–162Google Scholar