Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

Aims

To evaluate the hypothesis that failed osteosynthesis of periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures can be treated successfully with stem revision using a transfemoral approach and a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem with reproducible rates of fracture healing, stability of the revision stem, and clinically good results.

We compared the length of hospitalisation, rate of infection, dislocation of the hip and revision, and mortality following primary hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (n = 1064) and a matched control group (n = 3192). The data were collected from nationwide Finnish health registers. Patients with Alzheimer’s disease had a longer peri-operative hospitalisation (median 13 days vs eight days, p < 0.001) and an increased risk for hip revision with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.76 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.00). Dislocation was the leading indication for revision. There was no difference in the rates of infection, dislocation of the hip, knee revision and short-term mortality. In long-term follow-up, patients with Alzheimer’s disease had a higher mortality (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.70), and only one third survived ten years post-operatively. Increased age and comorbidity were associated with longer peri-operative hospitalisation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:654–61.

We report our experience of revision total hip replacement (THR) using the Revitan curved modular titanium fluted revision stem in patients with a full spectrum of proximal femoral defects. A total of 112 patients (116 revisions) with a mean age of 73.4 years (39 to 90) were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 7.5 years (5.3 to 9.1). A total of 12 patients (12 hips) died but their data were included in the survival analysis, and four patients (4 hips) were lost to follow-up. The clinical outcome, proximal bone regeneration and subsidence were assessed for 101 hips.

The mean Harris Hip Score was 88.2 (45.8 to 100) after five years and there was an increase of the mean Barnett and Nordin-Score, a measure of the proximal bone regeneration, of 20.8 (-3.1 to 52.7). Five stems had to be revised (4.3%), three (2.9%) showed subsidence, five (4.3%) a dislocation and two of 85 aseptic revisions (2.3%) a periprosthetic infection.

At the latest follow-up, the survival with revision of the stem as the endpoint was 95.7% (95% confidence interval 91.9% to 99.4%) and with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, was 100%. Peri-prosthetic fractures were not observed.

We report excellent results with respect to subsidence, the risk of fracture, and loosening after femoral revision using a modular curved revision stem with distal cone-in-cone fixation. A successful outcome depends on careful pre-operative planning and the use of a transfemoral approach when the anatomy is distorted or a fracture is imminent, or residual cement or a partially-secured existing stem cannot be removed. The shortest appropriate stem should, in our opinion, be used and secured with > 3 cm fixation at the femoral isthmus, and distal interlocking screws should be used for additional stability when this goal cannot be realised.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:889–95.

Implantation of allograft bone is an integral part of revision surgery of the hip. One major concern with its use is the risk of transmission of infective agents. There are a number of methods of processing allograft bone in order to reduce this risk. One method requires washing the tissue using pulsed irrigation immediately before implantation. We report the incidence of deep bacterial infection in 138 patients (144 revision hip arthroplasties) who had undergone implantation of allograft bone. The bone used was fresh-frozen, non-irradiated and pulse-washed with normal saline before implantation. The deep infection rate at a minimum follow-up of one year was 0.7%. This method of processing appears to be associated with a very low risk of allograft-related bacterial infection.

Instruments used in surgery which rotate or vibrate at a high frequency can produce potentially contaminated aerosols. Such tools are in use in cemented hip revision arthroplasties. We aimed to measure the extent of the environmental and body contamination caused by an ultrasound device and a high-speed cutter. On a human cadaver we carried out a complete surgical procedure including draping and simulated blood flow contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 12600). After cemented total hip arthroplasty, we undertook repeated extractions of cement using either an ultrasound device or a high-speed cutter. Surveillance cultures detected any environmental and body contamination of the surgical team. Environmental contamination was present in an area of 6 x 8 m for both devices. The concentration of contamination was lower for the ultrasound device. Both the ultrasound and the high-speed cutter contaminated all members of the surgical team. The devices tested produced aerosols which covered the whole operating theatre and all personnel present during the procedure. In contaminated and infected patients, infectious agents may be present in these aerosols. We therefore recommend the introduction of effective measures to control infection and thorough disinfection of the operating theatre after such procedures