Abstract
Periprosthetic fractures present several unique challenges including gaining fixation around implants, poor bone quality and deciding on an appropriate treatment strategy.
Early
With the popularity of cementless stems in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) we have seen a concomitant rise in the prevalence of intra-operative and early post-operative fractures of the femur. While initial press-fit fixation is a requirement for osseointegration to occur, there is a fine balance between optimising initial stability and overloading the strength of the proximal femur. Hence, the risk of intra-operative fractures is intimately related to the design of the femoral component utilized (metaphyseal engaging, wedge shaped designs having the highest risk) and the strength of the bone that it is inserted into (elderly females being at highest risk). These fractures typically are associated with a loose femoral component and require revision to a stem that gains primary fixation distally. We have found a high risk of complications and problems when treating these fractures in the early post-operative period with a high risk of infection, heterotopic ossification and the requirement for subsequent surgery.
Late
The Vancouver Classification is based on the location of the fracture, the fixation of the implant and the quality of the surrounding host bone. The most common pitfall in treatment is mistaking a B2 fracture (stem loose) for a B1 (stem stable); treatment of a loose implant with ORIF alone will necessarily fail.
