Search

Background: The number of total hip arthroplasties (THA) is expected to increase worldwide; thus, complications are likely to increase at the same ratio. In this scenario, periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are an increasing concern. Identifying the predisposing factors is important in order to prevent as much as possible the risk of PFF in the future., Patients and Methods: The purpose of this study was to correlate the risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures to the most common patients' comorbidities and stem geometry. We reviewed all THA for non-oncologic indications between 2004 and 2014 with a mean follow-up of six years (range, 2-12). Three thousand two hundred forty-eight patients (3593 implants) were enrolled in the study, and 45 PFF were registered during this time period. Two thousand five hundred seventy-seven implants (71%) were straight stems, and 1015 (28.3%) were anatomic stems. All X-rays were then analyzed and classified according to the modified Vancouver classification., Results: Periprosthetic femoral fractures incidence was associated with anatomic stem geometry (p < 0.001, OR = 2.2), BMI (p < 0.001), and diabetes (p < 0.001, OR = 5.18). PFFs were not significantly associated with age, gender, and all the other variables. Fracture pattern was different between straight and anatomic stems. Clamshell fractures were more likely to occur in anatomic stems compared to straight stems (p < 0.005)., Conclusions: Periprosthetic femoral fractures are highly associated with obesity and osteoporosis. Anatomic stems reported a higher incidence of PPF than straight stems. The typical fracture type for anatomical stems is the clamshell pattern, while straight stems are more likely affected by type B fractures.

Background: Modular fluted tapered stems have become the most commonly employed category of femoral component in revision hip arthroplasty in North America as a result of favorable early results and simplicity of use. Despite wide adoption, the majority of published data are limited to relatively small series with modest follow-up. The goal of the current study was to determine the success rate and factors associated with success, failure, and complications of the use of modular fluted tapered stems in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in a large patient cohort., Methods: We identified 519 aseptic femoral revisions during which a modular fluted tapered stem was utilized. Clinical outcomes, Kaplan-Meier survivorship, radiographic outcomes, and complications were assessed. The mean age at revision arthroplasty was 70 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m, and the mean duration of follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 2 to 14 years)., Results: The mean Harris hip score (HHS) improved significantly from 51 points preoperatively to 76 points at 2 years (p < 0.001). This improvement was maintained at the last follow-up evaluation (mean HHS = 75 points). At the time of the most recent follow-up, 16 femoral revisions had been performed: 6 because of aseptic loosening, 4 because of infection, 3 because of instability, 2 because of periprosthetic fracture, and 1 because of stem fracture. The 10-year survivorship was 96% with revision for any reason as the end point and 90% with any reoperation as the end point. Of the patients who were alive and had not undergone revision at the time of final follow-up, 12 had stem subsidence but all but 1 of these stems had stabilized after subsiding. Postoperative complications were noted in 12% of the cases. Repeat revision due to femoral component loosening was not correlated with the preoperative bone-loss category or patient demographic factors., Conclusions: In this large series, femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem provided a high rate of osseointegration and sustained improvement in clinical scores at the time of the last follow-up. There was also a high rate of successful implant fixation across all categories of preoperative bone loss and an acceptable rate of complications., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.