The Impact of Stem Fixation Method on Vancouver Type B1 Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Management

Overview

Journal SICOT J

Publisher EDP Sciences

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2022 Jan 6

PMID 34989673

Citations 1

Authors

Katherine Wang

Eustathios Kenanidis

Zakareya Gamie

Khurram Suleman

Mark Miodownik

Mahsa Avadi

David Horne

Jonathan Thompson

Eleftherios Tsiridis

Mehran Moazen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Our understanding of the impact of the stem fixation method in total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the subsequent management of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) is still limited. This study aimed to investigate and quantify the effect of the stem fixation method, i.e., cemented vs. uncemented THA, on the management of Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures with the same plate.

Methods: Eight laboratory models of synthetic femora were divided into two groups and implanted with either a cemented or uncemented hip prosthesis. The overall stiffness and strain distribution were measured under an anatomical one-legged stance. All eight specimens underwent an osteotomy to simulate Vancouver type B1 PFF's. Fractures were then fixed using the same extramedullary plate and screws. The same measurements and fracture movement were taken under the same loading conditions.

Results: Highlighted that the uncemented THA and PFF fixation constructs had a lower overall stiffness. Subsequently, the mechanical strain on the fracture plate for the uncemented construct was higher compared to the cemented constructs.

Conclusion: PFF fixation of a Vancouver type B1 fracture using a plate may have a higher risk of failure in uncemented THAs.

Citing Articles

Differences between two sequential uncemented stem sizes in total hip arthroplasty: A comparative biomechanical study and potential clinical implications.

Wang K, Kenanidis E, Suleman K, Miodownik M, Avadi M, Horne D SICOT J. 2022; 8:43.

PMID: 36367405 PMC: 9651064. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2022043.

References

Enoksen C, Wik T, Klaksvik J, Arthursson A, Husby O, Gjerdet N . Load transfer in the proximal femur and primary stability of a cemented and uncemented femoral stem: An experimental study on cadaver femurs. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017; 231(12):1195-1203. DOI: 10.1177/0954411917737804. View

Thomsen M, Jakubowitz E, Seeger J, Lee C, Kretzer J, Clarius M . Fracture load for periprosthetic femoral fractures in cemented versus uncemented hip stems: an experimental in vitro study. Orthopedics. 2009; 31(7):653. View

Moazen M, Jones A, Jin Z, Wilcox R, Tsiridis E . Periprosthetic fracture fixation of the femur following total hip arthroplasty: a review of biomechanical testing. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2010; 26(1):13-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.09.002. View

Leonidou A, Moazen M, Lepetsos P, Graham S, Macheras G, Tsiridis E . The biomechanical effect of bone quality and fracture topography on locking plate fixation in periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury. 2014; 46(2):213-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.060. View

Lamb J, Baetz J, Messer-Hannemann P, Adekanmbi I, van Duren B, Redmond A . A calcar collar is protective against early periprosthetic femoral fracture around cementless femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty: a registry study with biomechanical validation. Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B(7):779-786. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1422.R1. View

Lindahl H, Malchau H, Oden A, Garellick G . Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 88(1):26-30. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.17029. View

Leonidou A, Moazen M, Skrzypiec D, Graham S, Pagkalos J, Tsiridis E . Evaluation of fracture topography and bone quality in periprosthetic femoral fractures: A preliminary radiographic study of consecutive clinical data. Injury. 2013; 44(12):1799-804. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.08.010. View

Tsiridis E, Pavlou G, Venkatesh R, Bobak P, Gie G . Periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip arthroplasty: current concepts in their management. Hip Int. 2009; 19(2):75-86. DOI: 10.1177/112070000901900201. View

Moazen M, Leonidou A, Pagkalos J, Marghoub A, Fagan M, Tsiridis E . Application of Far Cortical Locking Technology in Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(8):1849-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.013. View

10.

Phillips T, Messieh S, McDonald P . Femoral stem fixation in hip replacement. A biomechanical comparison of cementless and cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990; 72(3):431-4. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.72B3.2341442. View

11.

Ercan A, Sokkar S, Schmid G, Filler T, Abdelkafy A, Jerosch J . Periprosthetic bone density changes after MiniHip cementless femoral short stem: one-year results of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. SICOT J. 2016; 2:40. PMC: 5115060. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2016033. View

12.

Jones C, Aqil A, Clarke S, Cobb J . Short uncemented stems allow greater femoral flexibility and may reduce peri-prosthetic fracture risk: a dry bone and cadaveric study. J Orthop Traumatol. 2015; 16(3):229-35. PMC: 4559535. DOI: 10.1007/s10195-015-0343-1. View

13.

Okudera Y, Kijima H, Yamada S, Konishi N, Kubota H, Tazawa H . The location of the fracture determines the better solution, osteosynthesis or revision, in periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Orthop. 2020; 22:220-224. PMC: 7225599. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.05.007. View

14.

Wang K, Kenanidis E, Miodownik M, Tsiridis E, Moazen M . Periprosthetic fracture fixation of the femur following total hip arthroplasty: A review of biomechanical testing - Part II. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2018; 61:144-162. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.12.001. View

15.

BURKE D, OConnor D, Zalenski E, Jasty M, Harris W . Micromotion of cemented and uncemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73(1):33-7. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B1.1991771. View

16.

Acciaioli A, Lionello G, Baleani M . Experimentally Achievable Accuracy Using a Digital Image Correlation Technique in measuring Small-Magnitude (<0.1%) Homogeneous Strain Fields. Materials (Basel). 2018; 11(5). PMC: 5978128. DOI: 10.3390/ma11050751. View

17.

Matsushita A, Nakashima Y, Jingushi S, Yamamoto T, Kuraoka A, Iwamoto Y . Effects of the femoral offset and the head size on the safe range of motion in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 24(4):646-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.02.008. View

18.

Klasan A, Baumlein M, Bliemel C, Putnis S, Neri T, Schofer M . Cementing of the hip arthroplasty stem increases load-to-failure force: a cadaveric study. Acta Orthop. 2019; 90(5):445-449. PMC: 6746255. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1634331. View

19.

Duncan C, Haddad F . The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B(6):713-6. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.34040. View

20.

Duncan C, Masri B . Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995; 44:293-304. View