Clin Orthop Surg.  2023 Feb;15(1):42-49. 10.4055/cios22004.

Does the Periprosthetic Fracture Pattern Depend on the Stem Fixation Method in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

• Han KS
• Kang Sr
• Yoon SJ

• KMID: 2538174
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4055/cios22004

Abstract

Background
Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) is reportedly challenging. Different patterns of PFFs would occur based on whether stem fixation was primarily cemented or cementless and whether these patterns would be associated with clinical outcomes, such as subsidence, fracture union, and complications, after stem revision.
Methods
A retrospective comparative study was performed, involving 52 PFF patients treated with tapered fluted modular stems (TFMSs). In the 52 patients with Vancouver B2 or B3, including 21 cemented stems and 31 cementless stems, fracture patterns and bone stock were analyzed. Clinical outcomes after revision surgery using the TFMSs were compared between the two groups.
Results
Transverse or short oblique type PFFs occurred around the cemented stem with loosening at the bone-cement interface. The Paprosky type III femoral deficiency and Vancouver type B3 fracture were observed more frequently in the cemented stem group. Otherwise, spiral fractures occurred more frequently in the cementless group (p < 0.001). Excessive subsidence of > 5 mm was observed more frequently in the cemented stem group (p < 0.001). The re-revision rates were higher in the cemented group than in the cementless group (p = 0.047).
Conclusions
In our study, it was found that the patterns of transverse or oblique PFFs were more frequently produced with cemented stems, while long spiral fractures were more frequent with cementless stems. Stem subsidence and reoperation related to complications were more common in patients with PFFs around cemented stems than those with PFFs around cementless stems.

Keyword

Taper fluted modular stem; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Revision total hip arthoroplasty