Cement-in-cement Versus Uncemented Modular Stem Revision for Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Fractures

Overview

Journal J Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2022 May 11

PMID 35541568

Authors

John W Kennedy

Alex Hrycaiczuk

Nigel Y B Ng

Owen Sheerins

Sanjeev R Patil

Bryn G Jones

Andrew Stark

R M Dominic Meek

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF).

Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database.

Results: We identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate.

Conclusion: With appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.

Citing Articles

[Surgical treatment strategies for periprosthetic femoral fractures of type Vancouver B].

Ries C, Gerhardt P, Helwig P, Bathis H, Kirschner S, Rolvien T Orthopadie (Heidelb). 2025; 54(3):205-217.

PMID: 39966160 PMC: 11868169. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-025-04613-y.

Choice of cemented or uncemented stems for displaced femoral neck fractures.

Kim K Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2024; 10(3):126.

PMID: 39403219 PMC: 11471151. DOI: 10.1016/j.afos.2024.09.001.

Stem revision vs. internal fixation in Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic hip fractures: systematic review and metanalysis.

Di Martino A, Brunello M, Villari E, DAgostino C, Cosentino M, Bordini B Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024; 144(8):3787-3796.

PMID: 39105834 PMC: 11417062. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-024-05469-1.

Does delay to theatre influence morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures?.

Kennedy I, Kennedy J, Rooney E, Ryan P, Siva S, Kennedy M Bone Jt Open. 2024; 5(6):452-456.

PMID: 38821502 PMC: 11142848. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.56.BJO-2024-0017.R1.

Revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture: epidemiology, outcomes, and factors associated with success.

Morgan S, Bourget-Murray J, Garceau S, Grammatopoulos G Ann Jt. 2024; 8:30.

PMID: 38529253 PMC: 10929400. DOI: 10.21037/aoj-23-16.

References

Richards C, Duncan C, Crawford R . Cement-in-cement femoral revision for the treatment of highly selected vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 26(2):335-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.03.014. View

Mandziak D, Howie D, Neale S, McGee M . Cement-within-cement stem exchange using the collarless polished double-taper stem. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(7):1000-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.06.001. View

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

Quah C, Porteous M, Stephen A . Principles of managing Vancouver type B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished tapered femoral stems. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016; 27(4):477-482. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-016-1883-7. View

Duncan W, Hubble M, Howell J, Whitehouse S, Timperley A, Gie G . Revision of the cemented femoral stem using a cement-in-cement technique: a five- to 15-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(5):577-82. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B5.21621. View

Mont M, Issa K . Updated projections of total joint arthroplasty demands in America. Commentary on an article by Steven M. Kurtz, PhD, et al.: "Impact of the Economic Downturn on Total Joint Replacement Demand in the United States. Updated Projections to 2021". J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(8):e68. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00005. View

Abdel M, Watts C, Houdek M, Lewallen D, Berry D . Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(4):461-7. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.37201. View

Meek R, Garbuz D, Masri B, Greidanus N, Duncan C . Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(3):480-5. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00004. View

Dohmae Y, Bechtold J, Sherman R, Puno R, Gustilo R . Reduction in cement-bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; (236):214-20. View

10.

Briant-Evans T, Veeramootoo D, Tsiridis E, Hubble M . Cement-in-cement stem revision for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. A 3-year follow-up of 23 cases. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80(5):548-52. PMC: 2823329. DOI: 10.3109/17453670903316827. View

11.

Quinlan J, OShea K, Doyle F, Brady O . In-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(6):730-3. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17037. View

12.

Della Valle C, Haidukewych G, Callaghan J . Periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee: a problem on the rise but better solutions. Instr Course Lect. 2010; 59:563-75. View

13.

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