When treating periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFFs) around total hip arthroplasty (THA)], determining implant fixation status preoperatively is important, since this guides treatment regarding ORIF versus revision. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of preoperative implant fixation status determination utilizing plain films and CT scans.

Twenty-four patients who underwent surgery for Vancouver B type PPFF were included in the study. Two joint surgeons and two traumatologists reviewed plain films alone and made a judgment on fixation status. They then reviewed CT scans and fixation status was reassessed. Concordance and discordance were recorded. Interobserver reliability was assessed using Kendall's W and intraobserver reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa. Ultimately, the “correct” response was determined by intraoperative findings, as we routinely test the component intraoperatively.

Fifteen implants were found to be well-fixed (63%) and 9 were loose. Plain radiographs alone predicted correct fixation status in 53% of cases. When adding the CT data, the correct prediction only improved to 55%. Interestingly, concordance between plain radiographs and CT was noted in 82%. In concordant cases, the fixation status was found to be correct in 55% of cases. Of the 18% of cases with discordance, plain films were correct in 43% of cases, and the CT was correct in 57%. Interobserver reliability demonstrated poor agreement on plain films and moderate agreement on CT. Intraobserver reliability demonstrated moderate agreement on both plain films and CT.

The ability to determine fixation status for proximal PPFFs around uncemented femoral components remains challenging. The addition of routine CT scanning did not significantly improve accuracy. We recommend careful intraoperative testing of femoral component fixation with surgical dislocation if necessary, and the surgeon should be prepared to revise or fix the fracture based on those findings.

Introduction

The vast majority of intertrochanteric fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails (CMN) will heal. Occasionally even though bony union occurs excessive lag screw sliding can cause persistent pain and soft tissue irritation and return to surgery for hardware removal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if fracture stability, lag screw tip-apex distance (TAD), and quality of reduction have any impact excessive lag screw sliding and potential cutout.

There is a paucity of available literature to guide the surgeon treating postoperative fractures of the greater trochanter after femoral component revision. Between 2009 and 2016, 133 patients underwent femoral component revision by the senior author utilizing a modular tapered fluted titanium stem. 17 patients died or had inadequate follow-up. Therefore, 116 patients were included in the final analysis. There were 58 males and 58 females with a mean age of 64 (range 23 to 91 years old). Clinical and radiographic data were analyzed for postoperative greater trochanteric fracture (GTfx). Mean clinical follow up was 21 months (range 3 to 77 mos). Age, BMI, preoperative diagnosis, comorbidities, reason for revision, use of Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy (ETO), fixation method of ETO, presence of prior hardware, post-operative trauma (falls), femoral component size and offset, change in leg length were analyzed to determine potential risk factors for postoperative GT fracture.

There were 7 postoperative greater trochanteric fractures in 7 patients (6%). Of these, 1 occurred as a result of a postoperative fall, 1 occurred after dislocation, and 1 occurred after a fall with a subsequent dislocation. The mean time to diagnosis of the fracture was 10.7 weeks postoperatively (range one day to 37.4 weeks). 52 of 116 patients had their revision performed through an ETO. Of those, 6 had a postoperative fracture of the GT. The use of an ETO significantly increased the likelihood of postoperative GT fx (p=0.035). Regarding femoral component size, use of a longer proximal body (+10 or greater) was associated with an increased risk of postoperative GT fx (p=0.07).

Two fractures were minimally (<1cm) or non-displaced and were treated non-operatively. Of these fractures, 1 united. The other fracture further displaced and resulted in recurrent instability. This was treated with excision of the fragment and a constrained liner. 5 fractures were displaced and were treated with ORIF. 3 were fixed with a cable grip device, 1 was plated, and 1 was treated with a cable grip device and a constrained liner. Of those treated with some form of ORIF, all 5 healed. Of those that underwent surgical fixation initially, 3 reported residual trochanteric pain and 1 patient had their hardware removed (trochanteric claw). 2 of these patients have a residual limp and require a cane for use as a gait aid. The patient treated non-surgically required a cane as did the patient that failed non-surgical treatment.

Post-operative greater trochanteric fractures are a rare complication of femoral component revision. The use of an ETO significantly increased the rate of post of GTfx. The mean time to diagnosis of was 11 weeks. Displaced fractures of the greater trochanter treated with ORIF all healed, both cable grip devices and plates were effective. Residual limp requiring gait aids and residual trochanteric pain were common outcomes after fixation of these fractures despite successful union.