1 / 32

CASE PRESENTATION

PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURES AFTER THA Emmanuel Illical, Adult Reconstruction Fellow Dr. Paul Beaule MD, FRCSC. CASE PRESENTATION. 81 F w/ left THA ~ 10 years ago for post-traumatic arthritis No peri- or post-op complications from 1* THA

floyd
Download Presentation

CASE PRESENTATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURESAFTER THAEmmanuel Illical, Adult Reconstruction FellowDr. Paul Beaule MD, FRCSC

  2. CASE PRESENTATION • 81 F w/ left THA ~ 10 years ago for post-traumatic arthritis • No peri- or post-op complications from 1* THA • Ground level mechanical fall at home onto left side • Immediate pain left hip / thigh and unable to weight bear • AVSS • Closed, dNVI, isolated injury • Prior to fall left hip functioning well

  3. CASE PRESENTATION Treatment options?

  4. CASE PRESENTATION • 3 Accord cables w/ Stryker Restoration Modular: • 265 mm distal stem • 21 std proximal body • 36 mm diameter, -5 mm length femoral head • Poly exchange

  5. CASE PRESENTATION • 77 M underwent revision right THA 1998-11-04 for aseptic loosening • No peri- or post-op complications • Ground level mechanical fall at home onto left side • Immediate pain left hip / thigh and unable to weight bear • AVSS • Closed, dNVI, isolated injury • Prior to fall: • mild occasional thigh pain • had been followed q6-12 months radiographically since 2009

  6. CASE PRESENTATION 2005-05-09 2011-04-07

  7. CASE PRESENTATION Treatment options?

  8. CASE PRESENTATION

  9. CASE PRESENTATION • 4 Accord cables w/ Zimmer Revitan: • 260 x 22 mm distal stem w/ three distal locking screws • 75 mm conical proximal body • 36 mm diameter, -3.5 mm length femoral head • Poly liner exchange

  10. OUTLINE • Classification • Vancouver • Defining a “loose” stem • Background • Incidence • Risk factors • Burden of disease • Management • Based on Vancouver classification • Ottawa experience • Summary: management principles

  11. VANCOUVER CLASSIFICATION A B1 B2 B3 C

  12. WHAT IS A “LOOSE” STEM? • Clinical signs • thigh pain • “start up” pain • Radiographic signs • always compare w/ baseline study! • progressive and extensive widening of interfaces • bone-cement or cement-prosthesis, bone-prosthesis • > 2 mm, endosteal scalloping, bead shedding • fragmentation / fracture of cement mantle • PRIOR to acute fracture = loose • in setting of acute fracture = not necessarily loose • migration / subsidence of component

  13. BACKGROUND: INCIDENCE • Intra-operative vs. Post-operative • Intra-operative incidence varies on fixation method used • 1* THA: cemented stems: 0.1-1% vs. uncemented stems: 5.4% • Revision THA: cemented stems 3.6% vs. uncemented stems 20.9% • Post-operative incidence increasing but difficult to estimate • Patient demographics, number of revised patients, type of fixation, f/u routines • Largest data from Mayo Clinic Joint Registry: • 1.1% after 23 980 1* THA vs. 4% after 6349 revision THA • Swedish Registry data • 0.4% after 1* THA vs. 2.1% for revision THA

  14. BACKGROUND: RISK FACTORS • Trauma • Low vs. high energy and “spontaneous” fractures • Age • multifactorial: bone quality (osteoporosis), previous surgery, co-morbidities • Gender • multifactorial: osteoporosis, more F undergoing THA, age (F > M when age > 80) • Index diagnosis • RA, hip fracture • Osteolysis / Aseptic Loosening • multiple studies demonstrate > 50% of fracture cases loose prior to fracture • Revision • rate of fracture directly related to number of revisions undertaken • average time interval to fracture  w/ each revision • Implants / Technique • cemented vs. uncemented; varus malposition; any factor that  bone strength

  15. BACKGROUND: BURDEN OF DISEASE • Lindahl et al. JOA 2004 (Swedish National Registry): high morbidity • Mean hospital stay = 21 days • Peri/post-operative complication rate = 18% • Bleeding > early dislocation > superficial wound infection > death > medical > vascular / nerve injury • Re-operation = 23% • Lindahl et al. JOA 2004 & Bone 2007: significant mortality • 9.4% mortality in first 12 months post-op • Estimated probably of death • At age 70: men = 2.1%, women = 1.2% • At age 80: men = 2.9%, women = 2.2%

  16. MANAGEMENT: TYPE A • Ag • usually related to wear debris osteolysis of GT • stable when minimally displaced (digastric complex holds in place) • protected WB to avoid displacement / provide environment for healing • displaced with adequate bone stock  ORIF • trochanteric clamp, wires, cerclage with lateral plate extension • avoids pain, weakness, limp, possible instability • limited bone purchase on trochanteric fragments / poor bone quality may compromise results • Al • reflect poor bone quality / osteolytic processes • difficult to reduce / adequately fix • treat non-operatively unless distal extension involving medial cortex that destabilizes stem

  17. MANAGEMENT: TYPE C • Fixation technique based on fracture pattern and location • Lateral based plate fixation • Locking technology / MIPO techniques can facilitate biologically friendly and mechancially stable construct • Augment with cortical strut allograft • Avoid stress risers between proximal end of plate and distal end of femoral implant • Span fixation around distal aspect of stem by at least 2 cortical diameters

  18. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS: TYPE B1 • B1 fractures = most variable treatment options & high failure rates • Non operative (protected WB, traction, casting / bracing) • Historical  higher morbidity / mortality compared to surgery • Cerclage wire / cables • up to 50% failure rate in literature • Plating options (compression / locking / cable-plate implants) • 0-48% failure rate in literature depending on type of plate fixation • Multiple reasons for high rate of failure: • inadequate fixation (torsional instability) leading to implant loosening / re-fracture • insufficient by-pass of fracture site • insufficient span of plate fixation over components • stress risers • varus malposition of femoral stems • misclassification of B2 fractures as B1

  19. MANAGEMENT ISSUES: TYPE B1 • Biomechanical studies have shown combining lateral plate + anterior cortical strut graft = most stable construct • clinical case series also have shown good results • disadvantages: cost, availability, disease transmission, soft tissue stripping, loss of endosteal healing potential, bulk (soft tissue irritation / cable pain) • some authors have questioned degree of stability needed for fracture union • Corten et al. JBJS Br 2009 • lateral plate and cable construct + anterior strut allograft only if anatomic reduction of medial cortex could not be achieved • 33 B1 fractures: 30 treated w/ plate alone; 3 treated w/ plate + graft • 29/30 treated w/ plate alone (96.7%) united at a mean interval of 6.4 months (3 to 30) • one had pain free delayed union which eventually united at 30 months w/o further intervention • one plate failure due to insufficient proximal fixation • no implant had to be revised for loosening

  20. MANAGEMENT ISSES: TYPE B1 • Lindahl et al. JBJS Br 2006 (Swedish registry data) • 1049 patients w/ periprosthetic fracture: 44.5% re-operation during 1st year post-op • 10 year survival rate: 70% overall (73% after 1* THA; 65%% after revision THA) • factors associated w/ INCREASED risk of failure: • Vancouver B1, initial treatment: cerclage wiring (44.9%) or plate fixation (33.9%) • reasons for failure: loosening > re-fracture • factors associated w/ REDUCTION in risk of failure: • loose stem / Vancouver B2, long revision stems • initial treatment: revision or revision + ORIF • factors NOT predisposing to risk of failure: • Vancouver types A / B3 / C • misinterpretation of stability of B1 fractures

  21. MANAGEMENT ISSES: TYPE B1 • Lindahl et al JBJS 2006: underestimation of femoral component loosening • primary THA group: 66% loose  47% unknown loose • revision THA: 49% loose  27% unknown loose • significant disagreement between radiological assessment and intra-op findings: • Vancouver B1 = 34% agreement • Vancouver B2 = 63% agreement • Vancouver B3 = 44% agreement • classification of Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures difficult • surgical exploration recommended for all patients w/ this pre-op dx

  22. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS: TYPE B2 / B3 • REVISION arthroplasty • Long cemented stem revision • very rarely considered • useful in very osteopenic bone w/ capacious canals • Long uncemented stem revision w/ distal fixation • most effective strategy in literature • extensively coated stem for femurs w/ > 5 cm tubular diaphysis (<18 mm diameter) • fluted tapered modular stem for femoral w/ capacious canals • use allograft struts to augment bone if needed • Proximal femoral reconstruction vs. replacement • patient age / functional class • severity of bone defect

  23. OTTAWA EXPERIENCE • Retrospective review of pts admitted w/ peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) • Jan 2004 to June 2009 • 63 cases reviewed • 7 intra-operative fractures; 56 post-operative fractures • 24 Males (78.2 years), 39 Females (79.3 years) • Indication for index arthroplasty: • OA = 48, Fracture = 14, RA = 1 • Implant type of arthroplasty: • THA = 50, Bipolar = 6, Unipolar = 5, Revision = 2 • Stem fixation of arthroplasty: • Uncemented = 44, Cemented = 19

  24. OTTAWA EXPERIENCE

  25. OTTAWA EXPERIENCE • 45/56 post-op PPF had adequate f/u • Radiographic union occurred in 37/45 (82%) • Morbidity: 8 non-unions, 7 infections

  26. SUMMARY: MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES • Make appropriate diagnosis • confirm stability of the femoral implant intra-operatively if in doubt • ORIF • Follow biologic fracture principles • Limit surgical dissection to minimum needed for adequate reduction and fixation • BUT need to obtain accurate fracture reduction (open or indirect means) • Use robust fixation • Absolute vs. relative stability (comminution) • Bicortical screw fixation (cement mantle can be used to obtain fixation) • Locking fixation for osteopenic bone • Cables as an adjunct (screw fixation not technically possible) • Strut allograft when medial cortex cannot be established / bone loss • Bypass distal extent of fracture by at least two cortical diameters • Avoid stress risers (span implants with length of plate) • Revision • Long uncemented stem w/ distal fixation +/- cortical strut allograft augmentation

  27. CASE PRESENTATION PRE-OP FILMS

  28. CASE PRESENTATION 6 WEEKS POST-OP

  29. CASE PRESENTATION 43 MONTHS POST-OP

  30. CASE PRESENTATION 53 MONTHS POST-OP

  31. CASE PRESENTATION 55 MONTHS POST-OP

  32. CASE PRESENTATION

More Related