Is Stem Revision Necessary for Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Hip Fractures? Analysis of Osteosynthesis Results from 39 Cases

Although stem revision is recommended for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFs), there has recently been a debate whether, under certain conditions, they could be treated by osteosynthesis alone. This study aimed to describe the medium-term clinical and radiological results of several patients with V-B2 fractures treated via osteosynthesis. A retrospective study of patients with V-B2 PPHF treated by osteosynthesis without stem revision, operated on between 2009 and 2019, was performed. The type of arthroplasty, type of stem, ASA, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), medical and implant complications, reoperation rate, first-year mortality, radiological results (consolidation time), and functional results were analyzed. Thirty-nine patients were included. Their average age was 78.82 years. Most of the patients presented ASA ≥ 3 (35/39) and CCI ≥ 5 (32/39). Radiological consolidation was achieved in 93.5% of patients, with an average consolidation time of 92.93 days. The average Parker test score before admission was 5.84 while the current one was 4.92 (5.16 years follow-up). Osteosynthesis without stem revision is a valid surgical alternative in certain types of patients with V-B2 PPHF, depending on previous mobility, fracture pattern (anatomical reconstruction possible), anesthetic risk, comorbidities, and previous hip pain.

STUDYING THE INITIAL STABILITY OF A NEW TYPE OF HIP REPLACEMENT- SPIRON SHORT STEM

Objective: we perform this study with the following objective: Studying the initial stability of a new type of hip replacement-spiron short stem. Subjects and methods: Experiments to determine the deformability, elasticity and force capacity of the femur were used for the short stem and the long stem replacement corresponds to the original femur without the prosthesis. Along with that, we were evaluated short-term results of treatment for 70 patients with 92 Spiron hips replacement in the Institute of Trauma and Orthopedic-108 Military Central Hospital, from 2012 to 2016. Results: The analysis results showed that the Spiron short stem prosthetic had a significantly smaller displacement in the mid-frost bond than the Zweymuller long stem prosthesis. Clinical research: Harris’s score was 45.2 (± 2.4) before surgery. At the final examination time Harris’s score was 91.4 (± 2.5). The rate: very good (75.0%), good (17.4%), average (3.3%), poor (4.3%). There are 02 cases early stem loosening had to stem revision surgery (2.2%). Conclusion: These results show the good initial fixed ability as well as stability when replaced by the Spiron stem.

Conversion to Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with and without Humeral Stem Retention: Mid-to Long-Term Results

Background: Over the past decade, conversion to Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RTSA) has become the preferred treatment for revision of an Anatomic Hemi (HA) or Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA). However, conversion of failed stemmed shoulder arthroplasty to RTSA is still a highly demanding procedure and carries unique technical challenges and risks. Questions/Purposes: This study aimed to analyze the mid- to long-term results after conversion of failed anatomical shoulder arthroplasty to RTSA and investigate whether preserving the humeral stem offers advantages over revising the humeral stem. Materials and Methods: Between 2005 and 2018, 99 hemiarthroplasties and 62 total shoulder arthroplasties (total =161 shoulders; 157 patients) were revised to RTSA without (n=47) or with (n=114) stem exchange. Complications and revisions were documented from medical and surgical records. Longitudinal pre- and post-operative clinical (Constant-Murley (CS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)), and radiographic outcomes were assessed. Complete clinical and radiographic follow-up was available on 80% of shoulders (127 patients; 128 of 161 procedures, 46 without and 82 with stem exchange) at a minimum of 24 months and a mean of 70 months (range, 24 to 184 months). Results: Humeral stem retention was associated with a significantly reduced surgical time (193 min vs. 227 min, p=0.001, less blood loss (591 mL vs. 753 mL, p=0.037), less intraoperative complications (13% vs. 19%; Odds Ratio (OR), 1.4, p=0.32) and fewer subsequent reinterventions (19% vs. 28%; OR, 2.3, p=0.06). The complication/revision rate leading to drop out from the study was considerable in the stem revision group (ten patients; ten of 114 shoulders (9%)), but there were no complication-related dropouts in the stem-retaining group. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that humeral stem revision is associated with decreased surgical time, less blood loss, less intra- and postoperative complications, and a lower revision rate compared to humeral stem retention. Based on these findings, a shoulder arthroplasty system modularity offers substantial benefit if conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty becomes necessary. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis

Background The procedure of femoral stem revision is challenging, and bone conservation with less stress shielding is a mandatory effort in these cases. Although there are several reports of stem revision with stems designed for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no report on stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis. Methods Between 1996 and 2008, 41 hips of 41 consecutive patients were subjected to femoral revision THA using the Wagner cone prosthesis. The mean age during revision surgery was 56.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 14.8 years. The clinical results were evaluated, and the femoral component was assessed radiologically. Results The results showed that the average period from the first operation to revision THA was 8.0 years. Additionally, the mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points preoperatively to 83 points at the final follow-up. All stems showed bone integration in the radiological evaluation. A subsidence of more than 5 mm was observed in 3 out of 28 (10.7%) femoral stems. Two patients needed an acetabular revision for acetabular cup loosening during the follow-up period. Furthermore, one patient had recurrent dislocation and had to undergo revision surgery for soft tissue augmentation. Conclusions We achieved favorable clinical and radiological long-term outcomes in femoral stem revision using the Wagner cone prosthesis. This cementless femoral stem could be an option for femoral stem revision in cases with relatively good bone stock.

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: results of an online survey of the European Hip Society

Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both trauma and adult reconstruction surgeons or combined teams treat these fractures following management algorithms. The aim of this study is to investigate the current treatment of PPF by members of the European Hip Society (EHS). Methods: An online survey of the members of the European Hip Society (EHS) was conducted. 20 cases of periprosthetic fracture were presented and surgeons were asked to answer questions regarding classification, treatment and postoperative treatment protocol. Results: A total of 132 (130 male; 2 female) EHS members responded. Mean years in surgical practice was 18.8 (min. 1 year; max. 50 years). The preferred surgical method was combined open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (30.3%) for AG fractures, ORIF with cables (30.4%) for AL fractures, combined ORIF (cable and plate) for B1 fractures (49.2%), stem revision with cables for B2 fractures (73.1%), stem revision with cables for B3 (55.9%) fractures and combined ORIF (cable and plate: 55.5%) for C fractures. Surprisingly, 10.8% suggested various stem revision techniques for B1 and 17.4% for C fractures. Strong variations were observed regarding postoperative weight-bearing protocol. Conclusions: A strong consensus was found for the choice of conservative or surgical treatment of the different PPF types according to the Vancouver Classification. Various stem revision techniques were the preferred surgical techniques for Vancouver B2 (91.2%) and B3 (88.6%) fractures. However, for postoperative weight-bearing, when the ORIF technique was used, a significant variation of protocols was found.

Stem retention and survival in revision of anatomical convertible shoulder arthroplasty to reverse arthroplasty: a Dutch registry study

Background Convertible stem designs allow for stem retention during revision from anatomical to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In some cases conversion is not possible for example due to excessive soft tissue tensioning. In these cases a total revision is necessary. The primary aim of this Dutch registry study was to evaluate the unforeseen stem reversion percentages in revision of convertible anatomical shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Methods Shoulder arthroplasties (n = 2834) performed between 2014 and 2016 registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry were selected. In 2016 94% of primary arthroplasties and 92% of revision arthroplasties were registered in the database. Arthroplasties were selected on convertibility. Mean follow-up was 2.4 years. We analysed the number of revisions for convertible and non-convertible designs. Cases with obligatory revisions as periprosthetic joint infections, stem loosening and periprosthetic fractures were excluded. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate humeral stem survival. Multivariate cox-regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for stem revision. Results The majority of procedures (respectively 90.9 and 72.1% for the convertible and non-convertible group) concerned a conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (p = .02). In the convertible group, the stem was retained in 29 out of 40 patients (72.5%). Overall implant survival was 94.5% after a mean follow-up of 2.4 years. Hemiartroplasty, fracture as primary indication, previous shoulder surgery and lower age were risk factors for revision. Conclusions Although convertible designs are gaining popularity due to their expected advantage in revision arthroplasty, surgeons should be aware that during a revision procedure in 27.5% of the patients an unforeseen stem revision is necessary.

Survival and reasons for revision of the uncemented Symax hip stem: A Dutch Arthroplasty Register study

Aims Previous studies have already shown early proximal ingrowth, fast osseous integration, and a stable fit of the uncemented Symax hip stem, with excellent clinical and radiographic performance. Aims were to evaluate cumulative revision rates and reasons for revision of the Symax hip stem using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data and to assess possible associations between patient characteristics and revision rate of the Symax hip stem. Patients and methods All total hip arthroplasties with the uncemented Symax hip stem registered in the LROI between 2007 and 2017 were included (n = 5,013). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess the cumulative 1, 5 and 7-year revision percentages. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the association between patient and procedural characteristics, and revision arthroplasty of the stem. Results Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year revision rates (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) for revision of any component were 1.5% (CI 1.2%-1.8%), 3.2% (CI 2.7%-3.7%), and 3.8% (CI 3.1%-4.4%) respectively. Cumulative 1, 5, and 7-year stem revision rates of the Symax hip stem were 0.9% (CI 0.6%-1.1%), 1.5% (CI 1.1%-1.9%), and 1.7% (CI 1.3%-2.1%) respectively. Periprosthetic fractures (n = 35) and loosening of the stem (n = 30) were the most common reasons for revision of the stem. Revision of the stem was associated with acute fracture as primary diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.4 (CI 1.3–4.3)), or history of a previous surgery to the affected hip (HR 2.7 (CI 1.4–5.2)). Conclusion This population-based registry study shows revision rates for the Symax hip stem comparable to those for best performing uncemented total hip arthroplasties in the Netherlands. Primary diagnosis of an acute fracture, and history of previous surgery on the affected hip, were significantly associated risk factors for revision of the Symax hip stem, and we discourage the use of the Symax hip stem in these patients.