header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

Fixation Methods in the Treatment of Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures: Our Experience of 69 Cases

The International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA)



Abstract

We have identified 69 patients with Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fractures around stable femoral implants. Open reduction internal fixation is the recommended treatment; however recent studies have revealed high rates of nonunion. We have reviewed the fixation techniques utilized to treat these patients, and identified outcomes in relation to rates of union, further surgery and mortality.

Patients were identified from a prospective database of all trauma admissions at Nottingham University Hospitals from 1999 to 2010. Hospital notes were independently reviewed and data retrieved.

69 patients were identified. Mean age 77 years and 63% were female. 51 (74%) occurred around total hip replacements and 18 (26%) around hip hemiarthroplasty after a previous hip fracture.

Periprosthetic fracture occurred around an Exeter stem (n=18), Charnley (n=10), Austin Moore (n=15), other (n=6). 20 patients had undergone previous revision surgery. The mean time from index surgery to fracture was 58 months (median 24) around primary stems, and 48 months (median 22) around revision stems.

6 patients (9%) were treated non-operatively. Five of these had undisplaced fractures (all healed but one required revision due to loosening) and one was too unwell.

63 patients (91%) were treated by open reduction internal fixation. Of these, single plate fixation was performed in 40 cases (64%). In the vast majority of cases, lag screw fixation of the fracture with a long (>12 hole) pre-contoured 4.5mm locking plate was utilised with cables. Both locking and cortical screws were used to achieve stable fixation (Figure 1). A double plate technique was used in 16 cases (25%), where plates were placed perpendicularly to each other (laterally and anteriorly). Strut grafts were used in 13 cases (21%). 7 patients (11%) were treated with cables alone.

23 patients have subsequently died (33%). Two have been lost to follow up and three are awaiting union. There is a mean follow-up of 35 months.

Deep infection occurred in 4 cases (6%). Non-union occurred in four cases (6%). Two of these were infected and one was treated with cables alone. Malunion occurred in one case treated with cables. One patient had a dislocation and two superficial infections occurred.

Further surgery took place in 8 patients (12%). Three of the infected cases were revised and one underwent wound washout. The two other non-unions were revised. Three further revisions were performed: one for malunion, one for aseptic loosening (treated non-operatively) and another for a second periprosthetic fracture. Superficial wound washout was performed in one case.

Mortality was 10% at 3 months, 22% at 1 year and 47% at 3 years.

We have identified that union can be achieved in the majority of cases after periprosthetic fracture fixation. Cable fixation was associated with a high complication rate (7 cases: two requiring revision surgery: one nonunion, one malunion).

We recommend that Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fractures are treated with meticulous technique to achieve anatomical reduction and fracture compression using lag screw technique and plating. Further mechanical support can be provided through the use of a second plate, cables and/or strut grafts.


Email: