Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
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

Hip

APPLICATION OF THE VANCOUVER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TO MANAGEMENT OF PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES USING CONTEMPORARY TREATMENT OPTIONS

The Hip Society (THS) 2019 Summer Meeting, Kohler, WI, USA, 25–27 September 2019.



Abstract

Introduction

The Vancouver Classification System presents a systematic approach to classification of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur (PFPFs) that has been validated in previous studies. However, with the introduction of tapered fluted stems and cable plates since the introduction of the Vancouver System, the connection between fracture class and the preferred method of treatment is often unclear. The present study was undertaken to identify fracture patterns surrounding contemporary femoral stems and the relationship between the current method of treatment and the Vancouver Class of the periprosthetic fracture.

Methods

Three experienced joint surgeons collected plain radiographs (AP and lateral) and CT/MR scans (n=40) from 72 cases of Vancouver A or B periprosthetic fractures performed over the period 2016–2018. We identified the mode of primary stem fixation and the Vancouver grade of the fracture (A, B1, B2 or B3). Two independent investigators examined all imaging studies and the intraoperative records and recorded: (i) and the location and distribution of the fracture surfaces, and (ii) the presence of incomplete cortical fractures that had initiated within the femoral cortex without completing propagation and (iii) the method of operative treatment. These data were analyzed to examine the incidence of fractures within more than one femoral zone and differences in the fracture patterns corresponding to each Vancouver class.

Results

One fifth (21%) of fractures were Type A with the remainder consisting predominantly of Type B2 (39%), with approximately equal proportions of Type B1 (22%) and B3 (18%) fractures. In almost half of Type B2 fractures (a loose femoral stem and a fracture adjacent to the prosthesis), fractures were also present within the metaphysis (ie. Type A+B). In the presence of a cementless femoral stem, fractures often occurred adjacent to the uncoated surface of the stem distal to the proximal ingrowth surface. Type B2 and B3 femurs had similar fracture patterns and degrees of comminution, though their method of treatment differed significantly. Incomplete fractures were identified in every Vancouver class (entire sample: 22%), especially in association with loose stems in poor quality bone (Type B3; 38% of cases).

Conclusions

  1. Approximately two-thirds of periprosthetic femoral fractures involve a loose femoral component (ie Types B2 and B3), though bone quality impacts operative treatment.

  2. In cementless stems, Vancouver Type B fractures often occur in the unbonded diaphysis between the distal edge of the ingrowth surface and immediately below the stem tip.

  3. Incomplete fractures are present in a surprising proportion of cases, suggesting that careful examination of imaging studies is needed to prevent fracture propagation due to inadequate fixation. CT scans are a useful adjunct to supplement plain radiographs.

For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly.