Purpose of the study: The purpose of this work was to search for a relationship between the size of the femoral cam, the presence of cup retroversion, and the presence of labral or chondral lesions on the arthroscan in patients with an asymptomatic femoroacetabular impingement.

Material and method: Fifty arthroscans were obtained to explore impingements. The patients complained of groin or trochanteric pain limiting their physical activities. Generally signs of an anterosuperior impingement were demonstrated with flexion-adduction-internal rotation. The localization, dimensions and depth of the cartilage lesions were measured on the arthroscan. The sagittal slice was used to describe the acetabular chondral lesions anteriorly to posteriorly in clockwise manner. Presence of an associated labral lesion was noted. A second operator measured the hip joint anomalies causing the impingement: Notzli’s alpha angle was measured to search for a cam effect and the femoral offset was noted.

Results: The presence of a femoral cam or a decreased femoral offset were found in all cases. Mean alpha angle was 65°; mean offset was 0.09. Acetabular retroversion was identified in 24 patients (48%). Chondral lesions were a constant finding and were superficial (type 1& 2) in 32 patients (64%) and deep (type 3& 4) in 18 patients (36%). Labral lesions were found in 28 patients (56%). The depth of the chondral lesions, like the presence of a labral lesion, were correlated significantly with increased alpha angle and patient age. There was conversely no correlation with the presence of acetabular retroversion.

Discussion: This study confirmed the close relationship between femoroacetabular impingement by a cam effect and the severity of labral lesions and acetabular cartilage lesions. These lesions can favour degeneration, explaining the early centred or posterinferior damage observed in young patients with satisfactory acetabular cover.

Introduction and Objectives: Periprosthetic fractures present some difficult problems: the inability to use intramedullary implants, difficulty in inserting screws (since the cavity is occupied), bone fragility, great mechanical demands, elderly patients, and associated conditions. We have used two osteosynthesis reinforcement techniques in these cases: massive intramedullary cementation and implantation of bone allograph counterplates. Both techniques give a simple solution for complex peri-prosthetic fractures.

Materials and Methods: We used this technique to treat 9 periprosthetic fractures of the femur between 1999 and 2003. In 3 cases, massive intramedullary cementation was used (Johansson type III, distal to the prosthetic stem) and in 6 cases a bone allograft counterplate (Johansson type II, around the prosthesis), associated with the stem replacement in 2 cases. Allografts came from the Tissue Bank of the Institut Clinic de l’Aparell Locomotor (ICAL). There were 7 females and 2 males, with an average age of 76 years (range: 66–83). Average follow-up time was 14 months (range: 6 months to 3.5 years).

Results: In 8 of 9 cases (89%), fracture consolidation was achieved in 3.5 months, with patients regaining the same ability to walk as before the injury. In one case with intramedullary cementation, non-union developed with breakage of the plate at 10 months post-intervention. This case was treated with compression osteosynthesis with a new plate and bone allograft counterplate, and final outcome was satisfactory (consolidation at 4 months) with the patient walking with full weight bearing without crutches.

Discussion and Conclusions: We believe both techniques are useful in the resolution of periprosthetic fractures of the femur over porous bone. However, a very precise surgical technique is necessary, as well as respect for the classical principles of osteosynthesis: fracture fixation with anatomic reduction, interfragmentary compression, and maximum care afforded soft tissue.