The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

Abstract. Introduction. In general the life expectancy of population is improving. This is causing to increase case load of peri-prosthesis fractures after joint replacements. We present our results of peri-prosthesis fracture around hip managed by revision arthroplasty. Methods. A retrospective analysis of 24 consecutive patients of periprosthetic hip fracture treated with a revision arthroplasty at Major Trauma Centre between February 2021 and January 2022. Results. 12 male and 12 female patients, average age 78 years. 3 fractures around BHR prosthesis, 2 type A, 15 type B and 3 of type C (Vancouver). The surgery was done in an average 6 days after injury (range 1–14). 6 patients died in follow up, 1 patient contracted infection, 2 developed LLD and 1 patient had multiple dislocations. 6 patients had revision using endo-prosthesis. Advanced age with peri-prosthesis fracture has increased risk of mortality (average age 84.5 years). Conclusion. Endo-prosthesis replacement had higher risk of dislocation, infection and mortality. Overall patients do well after a revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic hip fracture. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify modifiable risk factors associated with mortality in patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic hip fracture. Methods. The electronic records of consecutive patients undergoing revision THA for periprosthetic hip fracture between December 2011 and October 2018 were reviewed. The data which were collected included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the preoperative serum level of haemoglobin, time to surgery, operating time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and postoperative surgical and medical complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine independent modifiable factors associated with mortality at 90 days and one year postoperatively. Results. A total of 203 patients were identified. Their mean age was 78 years (44 to 100), and 108 (53%) were female. The median time to surgery was three days (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 5). The mortality rate at one year was 13.8% (n = 28). The commonest surgical complication was dislocation (n = 22, 10.8%) and the commonest medical complication within 90 days of surgery was hospital-acquired pneumonia (n = 25, 12%). Multivariate analysis showed that the rate of mortality one year postoperatively was five-fold higher in patients who sustained a dislocation (odds ratio (OR) 5.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 15.83); p = 0.006). The rate of mortality was also four-fold higher in patients who developed hospital-acquired pneumonia within 90 days postoperatively (OR 4.43 (95% CI 1.55 to 12.67); p = 0.005). There was no evidence that the time to surgery was a risk factor for death at one year. Conclusion. Dislocation and hospital-acquired pneumonia following revision THA for a periprosthetic fracture are potentially modifiable risk factors for mortality. This study suggests that surgeons should consider increasing constraint to reduce the risk of dislocation, and the early involvement of a multidisciplinary team to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia. We found no evidence that the time to surgery affected mortality, which may allow time for medical optimization, surgical planning, and resource allocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):580–585

Short stems have been developed to conserve bone stock, especially in younger populations undergoing a total hip arthroplasty (THA), and showed similar functional outcomes compared to conventional stems. Recent literature suggested that stem length might be an independent risk factor for acute periprosthetic femoral fracture in direct anterior THA (1) or with different short stem designs (2). The purpose of the present study was to compare the incidence of acute periprosthetic femoral fractures, between stems of the same manufacture (Taperloc microplasty vs Taperloc complete), which have the same stem characteristics, except for the stem length which is 35 mm shorter in Taperloc microplasty during posterior and lateral THA. Our institution's arthroplasty database was searched for all primary total hip arthroplasties utilizing short femoral stems performed between August 2016 and August 2023. Pre-operative X-rays for each case were analysed to characterize the proximal femoral geometry, specifically the canal bone ratio (CBR) and canal flare index (CFI). Data analysis was performed to identify risk factors for periprosthetic fractures. For the time period assessed, 2107 femoral stems (Taperloc Microplasty:1727, Taperloc complete: 380) were implanted. Females constituted 53% of the cohort. The average patient age was 70±11 years. The periprosthetic fracture rate was 0.94%, with 20 periprosthetic fractures (Taperloc Microplasty:17, Taperloc complete: 3) excluding 2 greater trochanteric fractures (1 at each group), identified at follow-up of three months. There was no significant difference between the periprosthetic fracture rates between the two stems (0.98% vs 0.79%, p>0.72) The multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that the stem length, CBR, CFI, age, and gender were not risk factors for periprosthetic fracture. The present study demonstrated that both Taperloc Microplasty and Taperloc complete stems had similar rates of periprosthetic fractures, and the stem length was not a risk factor for a periprosthetic fracture during uncemented THA. 1. Tamaki T, Cementless Tapered-Wedge Stem Length Affects the Risk of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Mar;33(3):805-809. 2. Staunton P. Acute Periprosthetic Hip Fracture with Short Uncemented Femoral Stems. J Arthroplasty 2024 accepted

Aims. Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems. Methods. We conducted biomechanical testing of bone analogues using six cemented stems of three different types: collarless polished tapered (CPT) stem, Versys Advocate (Versys) stem, and Charnley-Marcel-Kerboull (CMK) stem. Experienced surgeons implanted each of these types of stems into six bone analogues, and the analogues were compressed and internally rotated until failure. Torque to fracture and fracture type were recorded. We also measured surface strain distribution using triaxial rosettes. Results. There was a significant difference in fracture torque between the three stem types (p = 0.036). Particularly, the median fracture torque for the CPT stem was significantly lower than that for the CMK stem (CPT vs CMK: 164.5 Nm vs 200.5 Nm; p = 0.046). The strain values for the CPT stem were higher than those for the other two stems at the most proximal site. The fracture pattern of the CPT and Versys stems was Vancouver type B, whereas that of the CMK stem was type C. Conclusion. Our study suggested that the cobalt-chromium alloy material, polished surface finish, acute-square proximal form, and the absence of a collar may be associated with lower fracture torque, which may be related to PPF. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):270–277

The most common classification of periprosthetic femoral fractures is the Vancouver classification. The classification has been validated by multiple centers. Fractures are distinguished by location, stability of the femoral component, and bone quality. Although postoperative and intraoperative fractures are classified using the same three regions, the treatment algorithm is slightly different. Type A fractures involve the greater and lesser trochanter. Fractures around the stem or just distal to the stem are Type B and subcategorised depending on stem stability and bone quality. Type C fractures are well distal to the stem and are treated independent of the stem with standard fixation techniques. The majority of fractures are either B1 (stable stem) or B2 (unstable stem). The stem is retained and ORIF of the fracture performed for B1 fractures. B2 and B3 fractures require stem revision with primary stem fixation distal to the fracture. Intraoperative fractures use the same A, B, C regions but are subtyped 1–3 as cortical perforations, nondisplaced, and displaced unstable fractures, respectively. With the exception of A1 intraoperative fractures all other intraoperative fractures require surgical treatment. A recent publication utilizing a New York state registry highlighted the patient risk of mortality associated with periprosthetic hip fractures. One month, 6 month and 1 year mortality was 3.2%, 3.8% and 9.7%, respectively. The mortality risk was lower for periprosthetic fractures treated with ORIF at 1 and 6 months compared to fractures requiring revision total hip

Introduction. The risk of hip dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty is up to 20% following surgery for periprosthetic fractures. A technique was developed by the senior authors, involving a transtrochanteric osteotomy and superior capsulotomy to attempt to minimise this risk(1). Methods. This prospective study examines a cohort of 40 patients undergoing this novel technique, which involves extending the fracture proximally to the tip of the greater trochanter. This is then extended into the soft tissues in the mid lateral plane as a split of the glutei and a minimally superior capsulotomy (preserving the anterior and posterior capsule). This allows for revision of the femoral component, and retention of the socket and liner. The outcomes of interest to the authors were dislocation rates, clinical outcome measured using the Oxford hip score. These were assessed along with X-ray imaging at 1, 2 and 5-year intervals to confirm fracture union and measure stem subsidence. Results. Patients averaged 80 years of age, with a higher ratio of females (3:2). There were no cases of hip joint dislocations. Two patients (5%) underwent subsequent revision hip arthroplasty within the first 12 months of initial revision. Femoral stem subsidence at 1 year averaged 5.9 mm. All fractures showed radiological evidence of union. The Oxford hip score was fair, averaging 31/48 by 1 year post-op, and then plateaued at 32.8/48 at 2 years post-op. Conclusion. 5 year follow-up of this novel operative technique in revision arthroplasty of Vancouver B periprosthetic hip fractures has confirmed the benefits, with no cases of hip dislocation, along with overall satisfactory patient clinical outcomes

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the management and associated outcomes of patients sustaining a femoral hip periprosthetic fracture (PPF) in the UK population. Methods. This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including adult patients who presented to 27 NHS hospitals with 539 new PPFs between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. Data collected included: management strategy (operative and nonoperative), length of stay, discharge destination, and details of post-treatment outcomes (reoperation, readmission, and 30-day and 12-month mortality). Descriptive analysis by fracture type was performed, and predictors of PPF management and outcomes were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results. In all, 417 fractures (77%) were managed operatively and 122 (23%) conservatively. The median time to surgery was four days (interquartile range (IQR) 2 to 7). Of those undergoing surgery, 246 (59%) underwent revision and/or fixation and 169 (41%) fixation alone. The surgical strategy used differed by Unified Classification System for PPF type, with the highest rate of revision in B2/B3 fractures (both 77%, 176/228 and 24/31, respectively) and the highest rate of fixation alone in B1- (55/78; 71%) and C-type (49/65; 75%) fractures. Cemented stem fixation (odds ratio (OR) 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 4.99); p = 0.002) and B2/B3 fracture type (OR 7.56 (95% CI 4.14 to 13.78); p < 0.001) were predictors of operative management. The median length of stay was 15 days (IQR 9 to 23), 12-month reoperation rate was 5.6% (n = 30), and 30-day readmission rate was 8.4% (n = 45). The 30-day and 12-month mortality rates were 5.2% (n = 28) and 21.0% (n = 113). Nonoperative treatment, older age, male sex, admission from residential or nursing care, and sustaining the PPF around a revision prosthesis were significant predictors of an increased 12-month mortality. Conclusion. Femoral hip PPFs have mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates comparable with hip fracture patients. However, they have a longer wait for surgery, and surgical treatment is more complex. There is a need to create a national framework for data collection for this heterogeneous group of patients in order to understand the outcomes of different approaches to treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):997–1008

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement.

Periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent functional compromise. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as poor bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The key tenets for fracture avoidance include careful planning, identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, and using appropriate surgical technique. There are a number of recognised risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures The prevalence of intraoperative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia / osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intraoperative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, may also increase the risk of intraoperative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for postoperative femoral fractures following total hip replacement include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex. The management of periprosthetic fractures requires appropriate preoperative imaging, planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intraoperatively and in follow-up. There is a danger that these cases fall between the expertise of the trauma surgeon and that of the revision arthroplasty surgeon. The past two decades have afforded us clear treatment algorithms based on fracture location, component fixation and the available bone stock. We still nevertheless face the enduring challenge of an elderly population with a high level of comorbidity who struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. Perioperative optimization is critical as we have seen prolonged hospital stays, high rates of systemic complications and a significant short term mortality in this cohort. We have also been presented with new difficult fracture patterns around anatomic cementless stems and in relation to tapered cemented and cementless stems, as well as biologically challenging transverse or oblique fractures at the tip of a stem. In many cases, fixation techniques are biomechanically and biologically doomed to fail and intramedullary stability, achieved through complex revision is required. The sequelae of periprosthetic fractures include the financial cost of fixation or revision surgery, the associated morbidity and mortality in an elderly frail population, the difficulty with mobilization if the patient cannot fully weight bear, and a poor functional outcome in a proportion of cases. The battle over which patients or fractures require fixation and which require revision surgery continues

Purpose of the study: Few data are available concerning the proper management of patients with a periprosthetic fracture of the hip who presents biological signs of inflammation (increased WBC, sedimentation rate, or C-reactive protein). The purpose of this work was to determine the prevalence of elevated biological markers in this type of patient and to determine the reliability of such markers for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection. Material and methods: A periprosthetic hip fracture was diagnosed in 204 patients from 2000 to 2006. The WBC count, the sedimentation rate and the serum CRP level were noted at admission to the emergency ward. The diagnosis of infection was confirmed by at least two positive bacteriological samples of tissue biopsy and/or joint fluid collected at surgery. A statistical analysis was conducted to determine the prevalence of elevated biological markers of inflammation, the sensitivity, their specificity and their positive predictive value for deep infection. Results: Twenty-one patients (11.6%) developed a periprosthetic infection. Among the 204 patients, the WBC count increased in 16.2%, sedimentation rate in 33.3% and CRP in 50.5%. The sensitivity was 24% (WBC), 50% (sedimentation rate) and 83% (CRP). The specificity was 85% (WBC), 69% (sedimentation rate) and 56% (CRP). The positive predictive value was low (18, 21 and 29% respectively). Discussion: Markers of inflammation are frequently ordered before surgery to search for infection but can be elevated for various reasons. Most often, these markers are elevated because of the patient’s general status and are thus related to other co-morbid conditions and/or reaction to the new fracture. In this population, the WBC count did not contribute to the diagnosis of infection as only 24% of the infected patients had a high count. CRP and sedimentation rate and the WBC count had low positive predictive values. Conclusion: This study shows that an isolated elevation of biological markers of inflammation in a patient with a periprosthetic fracture is not a good indicator of infection

Periprosthetic fractures present an increasing workload as more hip arthroplasties are performed. They are often challenging to treat due to poor bone stock and patient frailty. We compare the early clinical and radiological results in 2 centres of 24 consecutive periprosthetic hip fractures in 24 patients, using a cannulated interlocked long stemmed titanium alloy femoral component with or without a hydroxyapatite (HA) coating (Cannulok revision prosthesis). The mean age at the time of operation was 79 years (range 65 to 92.4 years). The average length of follow up was 1.17 years (range 3 months to 5.3 years). All patients receiving a Cannulok revision stem with a minimum follow up of 3 months were included regardless of their primary aetiology and number of previous surgical procedures. Patients were reviewed and scored using the Merle d’Aubigne and Postal Score, Harris Hip Score and the WOMAC index at latest review. Periprosthetic fractures were classified using the Vancouver classification. At latest radiological review we measured subsidence, new bone formation (including presence of callus), osteolysis and radiolucent lines in all areas of the stem. Of the 24 fractures, 22 healed. In the 14 who had HA coated implants there was a 50% increase in bone. In the non-HA coated stems there was a 36% increase in bone radiologically. The mean Harris hip score was 74 at the latest post-operative review. The mean WOMAC and MDP scores were 48.7 and 7.7 respectively. The mean pain visual analogue score was 1.6 overall and 0 specifically for mid-thigh pain. We present encouraging early clinical and radiological results of the Cannulok stem system for treatment of complex periprosthetic fractures. This implant provides early fracture stability and subsequent biological bonding with an improvement in bone mass

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, bone loss and subsequent function. The prevention, early recognition and appropriate management of such fractures are therefore critical. The pathogenesis of periprosthetic factors is multi-factorial. There are a number of intrinsic patient influences such as bone stock, biomechanics and compliance. There are also a host of extrinsic factors over which the surgeon has more control. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures requires careful pre-operative planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intra-operatively and in follow-up. The key issues here are around identifying the risk, choosing the correct implant, understanding the anatomy, understanding the possible risks and avoiding them and using appropriate technique. There are a number of recognized risk factors for periprosthetic hip fractures. The prevalence of intra-operative fractures during total hip arthroplasty is higher in the patient with osteopenia/osteoporosis. Other conditions causing increased bone fragility, such as osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteopetrosis, and osteogenesis imperfecta are also at a higher risk of intra-operative fracture. The use of more and more press fit cementless components has also increased the number of periprosthetic femoral fractures because of the force required to obtain such a fit. Complex deformities of the proximal femur, particularly when associated with a narrow medullary canal, as seen in secondary degenerative joint disease following developmental dysplasia of the hip may also increase the risk of intra-operative fractures. Revision surgery is associated with a higher risk of intra-operative fracture than primary hip replacement surgery. These fractures typically occur during hip dislocation, cement extraction, or reaming through old cement. Other risk factors for post-operative femoral fractures include loosening of the prosthesis with cortical bone loss, local osteolysis, stress risers within the cortex, such as old screw holes, the ends of plates, or impingement of a loose stem against the lateral femoral cortex. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are increasingly recognized. This is in part due to the popularity of press fit components, which increase fracture risk both at the time of insertion and later due to medial wall stress shielding and pelvic osteolysis, and partly due to the increasing frequency of severe defects encountered at the time of revision surgery. Both over- and under-reaming are significant risk factors for acetabular fractures during total hip replacement. It is imperative to deal with the osteopenic patient gently and appropriately, being aware of the rim on the acetabular side and having the capacity for screw fixation where needed, having an understanding of where you wish to place your components and creating the appropriate runways for them, thinking about the stability of an implant as it is inserted and understanding that an implant that is less stable than expected probably is associated with either a size mismatch, a fracture or an implant that will not sit properly probably requires more or a different direction of reaming rather than harder blows with a hammer. A typical example where extra care is required is the scenario of a fractured neck of femur that requires total hip arthroplasty. The virgin native acetabulum in a patient likely to have some bony deficiency may be more difficult to deal with as it has a higher fracture risk. Pre-operative templating helps to identify the correct entry point for preparation of the lateral runway for linear insertion of a femoral stem. If resistance is met during insertion, the situation should be re-appraised to ensure that the direction and level of the rasp and prosthesis are the same. This reduces the risk of varus/valgus positioning which increases the risk of intra- and post-operative fractures. It is also important to avoid a change of version during insertion of the prosthesis as this can lead to high stresses

Introduction

The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims

Hip fracture patients are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness, and admission into hospital puts them at further risk. We implemented a two-site orthopaedic trauma service, with ‘COVID’ and ‘COVID-free’ hubs, to deliver urgent and infection-controlled trauma care for hip fracture patients, while increasing bed capacity for medical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.