Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 24:13:21514593221080341.
doi: 10.1177/21514593221080341. eCollection 2022.

Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Antonio Capone  1 , Pietro Cavaliere  2 , Antonio Campacci  3 , Christian Carulli  4 , Giovanni Pignatti  5 , Filippo Randelli  6 , Bruno Marelli  7 , Paolo Esopi  8 , Stefano Congia  1 , Giuseppe Marongiu  1
Affiliations

Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Antonio Capone et al. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. .

Abstract

Introduction: Periprosthetic femoral fracture around hip arthroplasty are growing in the world, nevertheless management and treatment options for fractures "around the stem" are still debated due to lack of high-level studies.

Materials and method: A 85-item survey were fill out by 40 Italian Orthopedic Surgeon member of SIOT (Società Italiana di Ortopedia e Traumatologia) and AIR (Associazione Italiana Riprotesizzazione) to assess their current opinion in the management of type B periprosthetic femoral fractures. Responses were summarized using proportions, and further stratified by practice type, case volume, surgeon age, and fellowship training.

Results: Vancouver/UCS fracture classification showed a good interobserver agreement (k value = .76). ORIF were the treatment of choice for UCS type B1 fractures (100%), revision stem for B2 (85%) and B3 (100%). Locked plates were preferred to cable plate and cerclage without a plate for B1 fractures (50% vs 40% vs 10%); revision with modular stem was preferred to monoblock stem for B2 fractures (50% vs 35%) and B3 (75% vs 15%). Responders tended to postpone at 1-month weight-bearing in patients with B1 fractures. Regarding postoperative pharmacological treatment there was absolute lack of consensus.

Discussion: The primary finding of our survey confirmed the preference of ORIF for B1 fractures and stem revision for B2 and B3 fractures. However, there is no definitive operative technique for all UCS B fractures. Surgeons tended to favor locked plating over cable plating, although only slightly. This general lack of consensus coincides with the inconclusive evidence that currently exists in the literature, which demonstrates both favorable and unfavorable outcomes for both techniques.

Conclusions: The absence of complete homogeneity among participants showed the need for prospective randomized studies to set up stronger guidelines for classification, management, surgical treatment, rehabilitation, and pharmacological support of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Keywords: Locking plate; Survey; Total hip arthroplasty; Vancouver type B; hip revision surgery; periprosthetic fractures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The number of periprosthetic fractures around the hip treated every year in responders’ institution.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Operative treatment preferences with percentages and stacked chart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pabinger C, Lothaller H, Portner N, Geissler A. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. HIP Int. 2018;28(5):498-506. doi:10.1177/1120700018757940. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Capone A, Congia S, Civinini R, Marongiu G. Periprosthetic fractures: Epidemiology and current treatment. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2017;14(2):189-196. doi:10.11138/ccmbm/2017.14.1.189. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bates BD, Walmsley DW, Vicente MR, et al.. An international, cross-sectional survey of the management of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures around total hip arthroplasties. Injury. 2018;49(2):364-369. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.034. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Duncan CP, Haddad FS. The unified classification system (UCS): Improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint Lett J. 2014;96-B(6):713-716. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.34040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yeo I, Rhyu K-H, Kim S-M, Park Y-S, Lim S-J. High union rates of locking compression plating with cortical strut allograft for type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2016;40(11):2365-2371. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-3107-x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources