Intraoperative peri-prosthetic fracture (IPPF) is an often-overlooked category of patients who can end up with poor results and early loosening if fracture is not identified intraoperatively and managed correctly. Such results affect both femoral and acetabular fixation and are often under recognized and under reported. As one might expect, reported rates of IPPF are significantly higher in uncemented prostheses. Two studies suggest the rate in cemented arthroplasty is around 0.3% to 1.2%,1-3 and several studies of uncemented implants suggest rates of 2.95% to 27.8% depending on a multitude of variables.1-5
Worldwide trends in arthroplasty show an increased tendency to favour uncemented fixation. In the United Kingdom this remains the case, with 65% of all hip replacements performed in 2016 either uncemented or hybrid fixation.6 While the National Joint Registry (NJR) records revision for postoperative peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF), which currently stands at 9.6% of all revisions, IPPF is not specifically recorded. Furthermore, whilst PPF carries a high rate of mortality with reported rates of 6% to 13%, and a high revision rate,7,8 mortality rates for IPPF remain unknown. With increasing numbers of arthroplasty performed year on year and a trend towards uncemented fixation,6 it stands to reason that IPFF rates will rise. This yearly increase highlights the potential need for registries and future studies to specifically record IPPF and its associated morbidity and mortality.
A number of factors can be associated with IPFF including: patient factors such as increasing age, gender, osteoporosis, or developmental dysplasia; comorbidities such as rheumatoid arthritis;9-12 implant design factors such as uncemented components and implant geometry;12,13 surgeon-related factors such as minimally invasive surgery and familiarity with prosthesis;14 and type of surgery such as revision procedures, conversion of internal fixation, longer and larger diameter stems, and more extensive reaming.15-17 Given the high rate of osteoporosis in elderly female patients and association with IPPF with uncemented implants, there has been a significant drive towards cemented implants in this group.18 Interestingly a recent paper by Zhao et al19 performed multivariate analysis on a group of 24 IPPF patients and also noted an association with anterolateral approach and a low metaphyseal-diaphyseal index, i.e. a wide metaphysis and/or narrow isthmus.
Specifically looking at uncemented femoral implant design, 90% of IPPFs are in double wedge or ‘fit and fill’ stems, and the remaining 10% are in porous coated ‘anatomic’ stems.20 These are type 2 and type 6 stems according to the system established by Khanuja et al.21 This is probably not surprising, given the significant variability in patients’ proximal femoral geometry, which can affect mechanical stress distribution.22 Studies have shown that these stems show significant differences in their dynamic responses to load in all planes,23,24 though no studies to date have looked at load to failure, nor during implantation.
A high index of suspicion and recognition intraoperatively with appropriate treatment is also important in relation to patient outcome. These intraoperative fractures are most often classified using the Vancouver system,15 which is a subtle modification of their well-known postoperative PPF classification system. Their IPPF system also considers location, pattern and stability of fracture to guide management. The most important step, however, is identification of the fracture at the time of surgery, and appropriate steps taken to stabilize it. This may involve use of cable plates, cerclage cables, internal fixation or conversion to a longer/revision stem.15 If fractures are not identified until the postoperative radiographs, the stability of the fracture should be established, and either protective weight-bearing or revision surgery undertaken.25
In terms of prevention, some studies have suggested that prophylactic cerclage cabling with either steel cable or braided suture can theoretically reduce the risk of IPPF by reducing strain and increasing hoop stress resistance.26,27 There are no current studies showing clinical correlation, though a cadaveric study by Waligora et al28 suggested that the rotation and energy to failure is higher when using one or more monofilament calcar wires. Interestingly, Greenhill et al29 have shown that not only implant choice, but also broach design, could affect IPPF. They showed that curved broach handles, used for minimally invasive procedures, increase the moment to force ratio by 163% to 235% in an experimental model, theoretically increasing risk of IPPF. Undoubtedly the most important factor in treating IPPF is prevention. Appropriate preoperative planning and strategies to minimize fracture, such as implant choice,30 templating and patient selection, are vital.
Open access
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions licence (CC-BY-NC), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, but not for commercial gain, provided the original author and source are credited.
None declared
None declared
References
1 Taylor MM , Meyers MH , Harvey JP Jr . Intraoperative femur fractures during total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res1978;137:96-103.PubMed Google Scholar
2 Berry DJ . Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am1999;30:183-190. Google Scholar
3 Abdel MP , Watts CD , Houdek MT , Lewallen DG , Berry DJ . Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J2016;98-B:461-467. Google Scholar
4 Schwartz JT Jr , Mayer JG , Engh CA . Femoral fracture during non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]1989;71-A:1135-1142.PubMed Google Scholar
5 Stuchin SA . Femoral shaft fracture in porous and press-fit total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Rev1990;19:153-159.PubMed Google Scholar
6 National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry 13th Annual report. National Joint Registry Reports, http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2013th%20Annual%20Report%202016.pdf. (date last accessed 24thNovember2017) Google Scholar
7 Bhattacharyya T , Chang D , Meigs JB , Estok DM II , Malchau H . Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2007;89-A:2658-2662.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
8 Märdian S , Perka C , Schaser KD et al. . Cardiac disease and advanced age increase the mortality risk following surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J2017;99-B:921-926.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
9 Lindahl H . Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury2007;38:651-654.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
10 Lindahl H , Garellick G , Regnér H , Herberts P , Malchau H . Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2006;88-A:1215-1222.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
11 Shen L , Sun Y . Performance comparisons of two system sizing approaches for net zero energy building clusters under uncertainties. Energy Build2016;127:10-21. Google Scholar
12 Sheth NP , Brown NM , Moric M , Berger RA , Della Valle CJ . Operative treatment of early peri-prosthetic femur fractures following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013;28:286-291.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
13 Berend KR , Lombardi AV Jr . Intraoperative femur fracture is associated with stem and instrument design in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2010;468:2377-2381.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
14 Jewett BA , Collis DK . High complication rate with anterior total hip arthroplasties on a fracture table. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011;469:503-507.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
15 Pike J . Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty - Evaluation and management. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00331 (date last accessed 23 November 2017). Google Scholar
16 Rothem DE , Rothem L , Lerner A et al. . Intraoperative Fracture of the Femur in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Fully HA-Coated Stem. OpenJ Orthop2014;4:70-76. Google Scholar
17 Lee YK , Kim JT , Alkitaini AA et al. . Conversion hip arthroplasty in failed fixation of intertrochanteric fracture: a propensity score matching study. J Arthroplasty2017;32:1593-1598.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
18 Sudhir B , Tanna D. D . Proximal Femoral Fractures. India: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, 2013:ISBN-13: 9789350903711. Google Scholar
19 Zhao R , Cai H , Liu Y et al. . Risk Factors for Intraoperative Proximal Femoral Fracture During Primary Cementless THA. Orthopedics2017;40:e281-e287.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
20 Carli AV , Negus JJ , Haddad FS . Periprosthetic femoral fractures and trying to avoid them: what is the contribution of femoral component design to the increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture?Bone Joint J2017;99-B(suppl A):50-59.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
21 Khanuja HS , Vakil JJ , Goddard MS , Mont MA . Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]2011;93-A:500-509.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
22 Oba M , Inaba Y , Kobayashi N et al. . Effect of femoral canal shape on mechanical stress distribution and adaptive bone remodelling around a cementless tapered-wedge stem. Bone Joint Res2016;5:362-369.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
23 Bühler DW , Berlemann U , Lippuner K , Jaeger P , Nolte LP . Three-dimensional primary stability of cementless femoral stems. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)1997;12:75-86.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
24 Healy WL , Tilzey JF , Iorio R , Specht LM , Sharma S . Prospective, randomized comparison of cobalt-chrome and titanium trilock femoral stems. J Arthroplasty2009;24:831-836.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
25 Mayle RE , Della Valle CJ . Intra-operative fractures during THA: see it before it sees us. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]2012;94-B(11 Suppl A):26-31.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
26 Nwankwo CD , Parrish R , Leasure J , McGann WA . Prophylactic Cerclage With Braided Polyblend Suture During Femoral Broaching. Orthopedics2016;39:e1183-e1187.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
27 Herzwurm PJ , Walsh J , Pettine KA , Ebert FR . Prophylactic cerclage: a method of preventing femur fracture in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics1992;15:143-146.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
28 Waligora AC IV , Owen JR , Wayne JS et al. . The Effect of Prophylactic Cerclage Wires in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Study. J Arthroplasty2017;32:2023-2027.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
29 Greenhill DA , Abbasi P , Darvish K , Star AM . Broach Handle Design Changes Force Distribution in the Femur During Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2017;32:2017-2022.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
30 Pijls BG , Nelissen RGHH . The era of phased introduction of new implants. Bone Joint Res2016;5:215-217.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
