Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The rate of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty is rising and the estimated current lifetime incidence is 0.4-2.1%. While most authors recommend revision arthroplasty in patients with loose femoral shaft components, treatment options for patients with stable stem are not fully elucidated.

METHOD: Against this background we performed a retrospective chart analysis with clinical follow-up examination of 32 cases that sustained a Vancouver type B1 or C periprosthetic fracture (stable stem).

PATIENTS: Overall 16 cases were treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) by plate osteosynthesis and 16 cases by revision arthroplasty (RA). Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, follow-up time interval, time interval from primary hip arthroplasty to fracture and rate of cemented femoral components, but more type C fractures were treated by ORIF.

RESULTS: Functional outcome expressed by the median timed "Up and Go" test did not differ significantly (30 s ORIF vs. 24 s RA, P = 0.19). However, by comparable systemic complications surgery-related complications were significantly more frequent in plate osteosynthesis (ORIF n = 10 vs. RA n = 3, P = 0.03). Based on our results, further studies, preferable via a multicenter approach, should focus on identifying patients that benefit from ORIF in periprosthetic fractures. A misinterpretation of type B2 fractures with loose implant as type B1 fractures may cause implant failure in case of ORIF.

CONCLUSION: The use of angular stable implants, additional cable wires or bone enhancing means is recommended.