Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented taper-slip femoral prostheses often result in a femoral component that is loose at the prosthesis-cement interface, but where the cement-bone interface remains well-fixed and bone stock is good. We aim to understand how best to classify and manage these fractures by using a modification of the Vancouver classification. We reviewed 87 PPFs. Each was a first episode of fracture around a cemented femoral component, where surgical management consisted of revision surgery. Data regarding initial injury, intraoperative findings, and management were prospectively collected. Patient records and serial radiographs were reviewed to determine fracture classification, whether the bone cement was well fixed (B2W) or loose (B2L), and time to fracture union following treatment.Aims
Methods
Standard practice in revision total hip replacement (THR) for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is to remove all cement from the femoral canal prior to implantation of a new component. This can make the procedure time consuming and complex. Since 1991 it has been our practice to preserve the old femoral cement where it remains well fixed to bone, even if the cement mantle is fractured, and to cement a new component into the old mantle. We have reviewed the data of 48 consecutive patients, treated at our unit between 1991 and 2009, with a first PPF around a cemented primary THR stem where a cement in cement revision was performed. 8 hips were revised to a standard length stem, 39 hips to a long stem & 1 patient had the same stem reinserted. All fractures were reduced and held with cerclage wires or cables and four had supplementary plate fixation. Full clinical and radiographic follow up was available in 38 patients & clinical or radiographic follow up in a further 6 patients. The other 4 patients. without follow up but whose outcome is known, have suffered no complications and are pain free. Of the remaining 44 patients, forty-two went on to union of the fracture and two have required further surgery for non-union. One patient has ongoing undiagnosed hip pain. Our long term experience with cement in cement revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures shows that this is a viable technique with a low complication rate and high rate of union (95%) in what is generally regarded as a very difficult condition to treat.
Although cement in cement acetabular revision is a recognised option in the presence of a well-fixed cement mantle, partial cement mantle retention is not normally recommended or practiced. However, when revising a cemented acetabular cup it is not infrequent to be faced with loose superolateral cement but well-fixed medial cement. Removal of the well-fixed cement can be time consuming and destructive. An alternative would be to retain this cement and incorporate it into the reconstruction. This study assesses the practice and results of partial cement mantle retention (PCR) at acetabular revision. We retrospectively identified a cohort of 28 hips in 26 patients using the PCR technique from 1st January 2000 to 1st January 2013. This represented 3.3% of cup revisions where a cemented cup was used. The area of cement loss was reconstructed in one of three ways: re-cementing into drill holes (6 cases); impaction grafting of the defect (8 cases); or use of a trabecular metal wedge (14 cases). 24 hips had a minimum 2-year follow up (mean 6 years). There were no subsequent revisions for aseptic loosening. One acetabulum was later revised for dislocation and X-rays were lost in one patient leaving 22 patients with x-ray available and retained implants. Two of these cases showed progression of lucent lines, which were not clinically significant. Retaining well-fixed medial cement during socket revision appears to be a reasonable reconstruction option in carefully selected cases.
