The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 90, Issue 9

Current Concepts Review | September 01, 2008

Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty: Evaluation and Management

Darin Davidson, MD, MHSc¹; Jeffrey Pike, MD¹; Donald Garbuz, MD, MHSc, FRCSC¹; Clive P. Duncan, MB, MSc, FRCSC¹; Bassam A. Masri, MD, FRCSC¹

¹ Division of Lower Limb Reconstruction and Oncology (D.G.), Department of Orthopaedics (D.D., J.P., C.P.D., and B.A.M.), University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E3, Canada. E-mail address for B.A. Masri: bas.masri@vch.ca

View Disclosures and Other Information

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. Commercial entities (Zimmer and Stryker) paid or directed in any one year, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits in excess of $10,000 to a research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which one or more of the authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, is affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2008 Sep 01;90(9):2000-2012. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00331

5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Article

Comments (0)

text A A A

Abstract

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming more common given the increased prevalence of revision total hip arthroplasty and increased use of cementless fixation.

Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures include the use of minimally invasive techniques; the use of press-fit cementless stems; revision operations, especially when a long cementless stem is used or when a short stem with impaction allografting is used; female sex; metabolic bone disease; bone diseases leading to altered morphology such as Paget disease; and technical errors at the time of the operation.

Appropriate treatment of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures does not compromise the long-term results of total hip arthroplasty unless the bone damage precludes stable fixation of the implant.

Figures in this Article

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty is a highly successful procedure with a high likelihood of excellent long-term results and a relatively low risk of complications. One of the major complications of total hip arthroplasty is periprosthetic fracture. Although both postoperative and intraoperative fractures occur, it is the former that have received the greatest attention in the literature. Despite this, the prevalence of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures is increasing^1-16. It is imperative that the modern reconstructive hip surgeon be familiar with the classification and treatment of these complications. Only intraoperative fractures will be considered in this review.

Intraoperative Femoral Fractures

Epidemiology and Etiology

Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures have received greater attention in the literature than have acetabular fractures, possibly because of the difficulty in identifying intraoperative acetabular fractures at the time of the operation^17-20. The risk of an intraoperative femoral fracture has been shown to be greatest when a cementless component is used in revision total hip arthroplasty. In one study, an intraoperative femoral fracture was encountered during 1% (238) of 23,980 primary total hip arthroplasties compared with 7.8% (497) of 6349 revisions², and subsequent studies have demonstrated similar results^13,21-24. In the study mentioned above², the rate of periprosthetic fracture during primary total hip arthroplasty was 5.4% (170 of 3121) when a cementless femoral component was used compared with 0.3% (sixty-eight of 20,859) when a cemented stem was used. Other studies demonstrated a prevalence of intraoperative fracture of 1.2% (seven of 605) when a cemented stem was used and 3% (thirty-nine of 1318) when a cementless femoral component was used^15,24. The variability in the reported prevalences of periprosthetic fractures may reflect differences between studies with regard to sample size or the use of different femoral stems and insertion techniques. Sarvilinna et al.²³ reported an odds ratio of 0.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 1.9) for the occurrence of a fracture in association with use of a cementless femoral stem compared with use of a cemented stem in a small case-control study that predominantly included postoperative fractures. These results must be interpreted with caution since there was substantial variability surrounding the estimate of the odds ratio. The prevalence of intraoperative fractures is increased in the revision setting. In one series of 175 cementless revision procedures, the reported fracture rate was 19% (thirty-four of 175)²⁵. In another study, the prevalence of intraoperative fractures in association with uncemented stems in the revision setting was reported to be 20.9% (322 of 1536) compared with only 3% (thirty-nine of 1318) in association with cemented stems².

Lerch et al.²⁶ reported a case-control study in which forty-two patients with an intraoperative femoral fracture were compared with forty-two controls who did not have a fracture. All fractures occurred in association with uncemented stems. Forty of the forty-two fractures united, and there were two instances of nonunion of a fracture in the greater trochanter with trochanteric migration. There were no differences in the Harris hip scores, Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores, or postoperative complications between the two groups.

Risk Factors

The risk factors for intraoperative femoral fractures have been more widely reported than have those for acetabular fractures. There is an increased risk in association with cementless stems, especially in the revision setting. This is predominantly due to the need for press-fitting of cementless stems in conjunction with the bone loss typically associated with revision total hip arthroplasty. The potential mismatch between the bow of the femur and the bow of the stem is accentuated by the use of a long revision stem, increasing the risk of intraoperative fracture. Issack et al.²⁷ reported an intraoperative fracture during fourteen (8%) of 175 cementless revision total hip arthroplasties in which a porous-coated, distally slotted, fluted stem was used. Other techniques used in revision total hip arthroplasty, in particular impaction bone-grafting, may increase the risk of fracture. Use of prophylactic cerclage wiring, longer stems, and possibly cortical onlay allografts^11,13 should be considered in conjunction with this technique. The prevalence of intraoperative femoral fracture during impaction bone-grafting has been reported to be between 4% (three of sixty-eight) and 32% (twenty-two of sixty-eight)^28-34. Farfalli et al.³⁴ reported a series of fifty-nine intraoperative fractures that had occurred during revision total hip arthroplasty with impaction bone-grafting. There were thirty-four frank fractures (58%) and twenty-five instances of cortical perforation (42%). The majority of the fractures (44%) occurred during cement removal, while seven fractures (12%) occurred during allograft impaction and twenty-six (44%) were diagnosed in the immediate postoperative period.

The impact of minimally invasive techniques was studied by Asayama et al.³⁵, who reported an intraoperative fracture in two of fifty-two patients treated with a limited-incision direct lateral approach for a primary total hip arthroplasty. There were no fractures in patients treated with a standard incision, defined as one >10 cm in length. Moroni et al.³⁶ investigated risk factors for intraoperative femoral fractures in a retrospective study of 3566 total hip arthroplasties, during which eighty-three fractures occurred. The only significant risk factors were female sex, use of an uncemented femoral stem, previous surgery on the affected hip, and revision total hip arthroplasty (p < 0.05). The authors did not utilize a logistic regression analysis to determine the risk; consequently, the magnitude of the risk and the possible confounding effects of those variables are unknown.

Several patient characteristics may be associated with an increased risk of intraoperative fracture. Female sex and increased age have been suggested to be independent risk factors⁵; however, these factors may be confounded by osteoporosis. Medical comorbidities, in particular rheumatoid arthritis, have been suggested to be risk factors, but they may be similarly confounded by associated osteopenia^9,10. Altered bone morphology or deformity, as seen in Paget disease¹³, can also increase the risk of fracture.

There is a multifactorial impact on the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty. The increasing number of revision procedures in older patients introduces the effect of osteopenia, osteolysis, or stress-shielding with subsequent bone defects as well as the presence of stress-risers related to previous procedures. Underreaming of the femoral cortex, use of a large-diameter femoral stem, and a low ratio between the diameters of the femoral cortex and canal have been associated with a greater risk of intraoperative fracture³⁷.

Diagnosis

The surgeon must have a high index of suspicion for iatrogenic fractures. During insertion of the stem, particularly an uncemented component, a sudden change in resistance is highly suggestive of a femoral fracture. Intraoperative radiographs should be made to rule out fracture when a concern is raised. It should be noted that a nondisplaced fracture may not be visualized on radiographs, emphasizing the need to combine intraoperative clinical assessment with the imaging findings in order to diagnose all fractures. The stability of the component, particularly an uncemented stem, must be ensured prior to closure.

Classification

It has been recommended that treatment of both intraoperative and postoperative fractures be based on the classification of the injury^11,38. The Vancouver classification for intraoperative fractures (Fig. 1) can be used to guide management^11,39, although, in contrast to the Vancouver classification system for postoperative fractures, its reliability and validity have not been tested⁴⁰. The intraoperative classification takes into account the location, pattern, and stability of the fracture. Intraoperative fractures are classified as type A if they involve the proximal metaphysis, type B if the fracture is diaphyseal, and type C if the fracture is distal to the stem tip and not amenable to insertion of the longest revision stem. Each type is further subclassified as subtype 1 if there is only a cortical perforation, subtype 2 if there is a nondisplaced crack, and subtype 3 if there is a displaced unstable fracture pattern.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 1: Vancouver classification of intraoperative femoral periprosthetic fractures. A: type A1; B: type A2; C: type A3; D: type B1; E: type B2; F: type B3; and G: type C1 (left image), type C2 (center image), and type C3 (right image). (Reprinted, with permission, from: Greidanus NV, Mitchell PA, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Principles of management and results of treating the fractured femur during and after total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2003;52:309-22.)

Treatment and Results

Accurate classification of the fracture type allows appropriate management^11,39. We are not aware of any comparative studies providing evidence regarding the ideal treatment of these various fracture types. The principles of treatment include ensuring stability of the total hip arthroplasty components and the fracture, avoidance of fracture propagation, and maintenance of component position and alignment. Adherence to these principles should provide the greatest chance for good long-term outcomes, and these principles are likely to remain constant regardless of changes in technology or surgical techniques.

In our experience, type-A1 fractures have usually been stable and can be treated with bone graft alone, usually obtained from the acetabular reaming. We prefer to treat type-A2 fractures with placement of cerclage wire before the stem is inserted to prevent propagation if a proximally coated stem is used. While there is no solid evidence for this recommendation, it makes sense to stabilize these fractures, particularly because the addition of cerclage wire adds very little morbidity and is a rapid procedure that does not compromise, and possible improves, outcomes. The implant is usually stable with this construct. If a fully porous-coated stem is used, the fracture may be ignored as long as there is no distal propagation of the fracture line. Type-A3 fractures can be treated with a porous-coated diaphysis-fitting stem or a tapered-fluted stem. The above two recommendations are based on our experience and on basic biomechanical principles. An isolated fracture of the greater trochanter can be treated with trochanteric fixation with wires, cables, or a claw-plate (Fig. 2) in order to reduce and stabilize the fracture, in keeping with basic orthopaedic principles. These fractures do not preclude the use of cement, but care must be taken to occlude breaches in the cortex to achieve an effective cement mantle during pressurization, to protect important neurovascular structures from injury due to extruded cement, and to ensure that there is no cement between the fracture fragments.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 2: The trochanteric claw-plate (Zimmer), which can be used for fixation of greater trochanteric fractures.

Type-B1 fractures usually occur during cement removal and can be treated by bypassing the affected area by two cortical diameters with a longer stem; this magnitude of bypass has been shown to provide sufficient stability⁴¹. Allograft cortical struts can be used to supplement fixation. Type-B2 fractures usually result from increased hoop stress during placement of either the broach or the implant. These injuries may be missed intraoperatively, in which case they are usually diagnosed on postoperative radiographs. If they are diagnosed intraoperatively, management can consist of placement of cerclage wire as long as the implant is stable (Fig. 3). If implant stability has been compromised, one should consider bypassing the defect, if possible. Cortical allograft may be used if the bone quality is deemed to be poor or if the fracture cannot be bypassed with the stem. If these injuries are diagnosed postoperatively, treatment should consist of protected weight-bearing and close observation. Type-B3 injuries usually occur during hip dislocation, cement removal, or final stem insertion. These fractures can be treated by bypassing the fracture site with a longer stem and using cortical allograft if necessary (Figs. 4-A and 4-B).

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 3: Treatment of a type-B2 fracture with cerclage wire fixation.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 4-A: Figs. 4-A and 4-B Treatment of a type-B3 fracture with cerclage wire fixation supplemented with an allograft cortical strut. Fig. 4-A Intraoperative appearance.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 4-B: Postoperative anteroposterior radiograph.

Type-C1 fractures usually occur during cement removal or canal preparation and can be treated with morselized bone graft and by bypassing the fracture site as well as use of cortical onlay allografts. Treatment of type-C2 fractures can consist of use of cerclage wires and augmentation with an allograft cortical strut (Figs. 5-A and 5-B), whereas type-C3 fractures can be treated with open reduction and internal fixation (Figs. 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C).

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 5-A: Figs. 5-A and 5-B Use of cerclage wire fixation for treatment of a type-C2 fracture of the left femur. Fig. 5-A Anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 5-B: Anteroposterior radiograph of the affected femur.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 6-A: Figs. 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C Open reduction and internal fixation of a type-C3 fracture with use of a large-fragment locking plate. Fig. 6-A Anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 6-B Fig. 6-C: Anteroposterior (Fig. 6-B) and lateral (Fig. 6-C) radiographs of the femur.

The reported results of treatment of intraoperative femoral fractures^19,21,27 are difficult to compare because different fixation strategies have been used; there have been no comparative studies, to our knowledge; and there has been a lack of consistency in the classification of the fractures.

Early reports described various methods of treatment for intraoperative fractures^24,42. Khan and O'Driscoll⁴² reported on seventeen fractures, with the short oblique fractures treated with a standard femoral implant, the long oblique fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation, and the fractures distal to the stem tip treated with skeletal traction. This third method, although thought appropriate at the time of the study, would not be recommended currently, illustrating the difficulty in the interpretation of the literature.

Farfalli et al.³⁴ utilized cerclage wires for all vertical perforations, metaphyseal fractures, and trochanteric fractures. Patients younger than sixty-five years of age were treated with placement of a cortical allograft with impacted bone graft and a cemented short femoral stem. If a cemented stem is used, great care must be taken to ensure that there is no cement within the fracture lines because of the associated increased risk of nonunion. The preference at our center is to bypass the fracture with a cementless diaphysis-fitting stem and to augment the fixation with cerclage wiring and possibly a cortical allograft. These treatment options have not, however, been evaluated in a comparative study, to our knowledge. Chappell and Lachiewicz⁴³ described fifty-four consecutive cementless revision total hip arthroplasties associated with a total of nine femoral fractures. Eight of those fractures occurred during insertion of a curved stem and one, during exposure of the femur. The fractures were treated with cortical allografts and protected weight-bearing, with a successful result in six cases. Berend et al.⁴⁴ reported on 1320 primary total hip arthroplasties done with use of an uncemented femoral stem. There were fifty-eight intraoperative calcar fractures, which were treated with cerclage wires or cables and unrestricted weight-bearing postoperatively. At the time of follow-up, at a mean of 7.5 years and a minimum of two years, no patient had undergone a revision.

There have been few recent investigations of modern treatment techniques for intraoperative fractures. Paprosky and Aribindi⁴⁵ described one intraoperative fracture among eighty-seven patients treated with an extensively porous-coated, bowed, cementless revision stem with a bullet tip (Solution; DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana); a longer curved stem was used to bypass the fracture. Duwelius et al.⁴ reported two intraoperative fractures that had propagated distal to the lesser trochanter and were treated with two cerclage wires with no complications.

To our knowledge, the largest study of intraoperative femoral fractures at the time of revision total hip arthroplasty was reported by Meek et al.³⁷. Of 211 consecutive patients, sixty-four (30%) sustained an intraoperative femoral fracture and 147 did not sustain a fracture. An extensively coated femoral stem for which a diaphyseal fit had been obtained had been used in all patients. The fractures were classified with use of the Vancouver system^11,39, and the most prevalent type was B2 (observed in thirty-nine cases [61%]) followed by B1 (observed in eleven [17%]). The risk factors for intraoperative fracture were substantial bone loss, a low ratio between the cortical and canal diameters, underreaming of the femoral canal, and use of a large-diameter stem. A wide variety of treatment modalities were used, with the most common being cerclage wire fixation (in twenty-five cases [39%]) followed by placement of an allograft cortical strut (in eighteen [28%]). At a minimum of two years postoperatively, there was no difference in the functional outcome according to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) or the Oxford-12 or SF-36 outcome measures. Thirty-three patients were available for radiographic evaluation at a minimum of two years postoperatively; bone ingrowth of the stem was noted in 97% of them, and a stable fibrous union was noted in 3%. No significant difference in the prevalence of stable fractures was found when bowed and straight stems were compared or when 10-in (25-cm) and 8-in (20.3-cm) stems were compared. However, 10-in stems had been used more frequently in the group with an unstable fracture.

Biomechanical studies have been performed to compare the strengths of different fixation constructs. Schmotzer et al.⁴⁶ studied several different constructs and reported that cables were stronger than cerclage wires; dynamic plates were better than Ogden plates; and, for the treatment of unstable fractures, revision with a long cementless stem should be supplemented with allograft cortical struts. Another biomechanical study demonstrated that plate constructs with only screws or screws combined with cables provided the greatest fixation stability⁴⁷. Use of double plates (one anterior and one lateral) has been demonstrated to provide greater stability than use of a single lateral plate with wires; however, the authors of that report acknowledged the disadvantage of the requisite additional soft-tissue dissection required with the double-plate strategy⁴⁸. Wilson et al.⁴⁹ reported that the ideal construct for a fracture with a stable femoral stem was a lateral plate supplemented with an anterior allograft cortical strut. Although the ideal stability has been considered in these studies, the minimum stability required for successful union remains unknown. This issue affects all of the reported biomechanical findings and is relevant given the need for the use of allograft bone, which may not be readily available in all centers, and the additional soft-tissue dissection required to place the grafts. We are not aware of any studies comparing the combination of standard dynamic compression plates and allograft with more modern fixation devices, such as locking plates. These issues should be considered in the interpretation of in vitro biomechanical studies.

Intraoperative Acetabular Fractures

Epidemiology and Etiology

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum are less commonly recognized than femoral fractures. They are reportedly more common in association with uncemented cups^20,50-53. In 1974, McElfresh and Coventry⁵⁴ reported only one intraoperative periprosthetic acetabular fracture during 5400 total hip arthroplasties performed with cement (a prevalence of <0.02%); however, as a result of the infrequent attention to intraoperative acetabular fractures in the literature, this may be an underestimate. Haidukewych et al.¹⁹ reviewed a series of 7121 primary total hip arthroplasties and reported an intraoperative acetabular fracture during twenty-one (0.4%) of 5359 performed with an uncemented acetabular component. No acetabular fractures occurred during any of the 1762 procedures done with a cemented component. Of the twenty-one fractures, seventeen were stable and four were treated with supplemental screw fixation. Elliptical monoblock cups were associated with the highest risk of fracture, with a prevalence of 3.5% (twelve) of 339 compared with a prevalence of 0.09% (two of 2198) in association with hemispherical modular shells. Sharkey et al.⁵⁵ reported that thirteen intraoperative acetabular fractures occurred during the insertion of uncemented components; nine were diagnosed intraoperatively. Various treatment methods were employed, including additional screw fixation, autogenous bone-grafting, and protected weight-bearing. Two cases required revision of the acetabular component, one patient died in the immediate postoperative period, and ten acetabular components remained unrevised after a maximum duration of follow-up of fifty-nine months.

Intraoperative acetabular fractures most frequently occur during insertion of the component⁵⁵. This is due to the underreaming required for the fixation of a cementless acetabular component when no screws are used. In order to minimize the risk of fracture, it has been suggested that components not be oversized by >2 mm⁵⁵. It should be noted that the 2-mm rule applies for average acetabular diameters. When very large cups are used, it may be appropriate to oversize by >2 mm, depending on the clinical circumstances and the quality of the bone, although we are not aware of any data regarding this issue. Patient factors contributing to the risk of these fractures include osteopenia, metabolic bone disease, and osteolytic defects. Factors related to the operative technique include aggressive reaming and the use of a cup in which the rim circumference is larger than the nominal diameter of the cup.

Diagnosis

Maintaining a high index of suspicion for intraoperative acetabular fractures is important as they can be difficult to identify. When a concern arises regarding a possible fracture, a full clinical and radiographic assessment of the affected area is required. This should include careful determination of component stability with use of intraoperative stress testing of the pelvis and the acetabular component, and it may require removal of the cup to fully examine the acetabulum.

Classification

Intraoperative acetabular fractures were classified by Callaghan et al.^17,18 on the basis of in vitro investigation. Their classification system identifies four types of fractures on the basis of the anatomic location: anterior wall, transverse, inferior lip, and posterior wall.

Della Valle et al.⁵⁶ classified acetabular fractures, including both intraoperative and postoperative types. Type-I fractures occur intraoperatively at the time of insertion of the acetabular component and are subclassified as type A if they are diagnosed intraoperatively, are undisplaced, and are associated with a stable component; as type B if they are diagnosed intraoperatively but are associated with a displaced fracture; and as type C if they are diagnosed postoperatively. It can be difficult to differentiate between undisplaced and displaced fractures intraoperatively, which highlights the importance of obtaining and considering both intraoperative and radiographic findings. Type-II injuries occur at the time of component removal and are further classified as type A if there is <50% loss of acetabular bone stock and as type B if there is >50% loss of acetabular bone stock. The remaining fracture types comprise postoperative injuries and are beyond the scope of this review. In our opinion, this is a cumbersome classification system and the most important factors are whether the implant is stable in association with the intraoperative or postoperative fracture and whether there is pelvic discontinuity in the presence of failure of the acetabular component with massive osteolysis. Therefore, we propose the following addition to the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic fractures^11,39, as it applies to the acetabulum intraoperatively: type I—an undisplaced fracture that does not compromise the stability of the component; type II—an undisplaced fracture that potentially compromises the stability of the reconstruction, such as a transverse fracture of the acetabulum (with pelvic discontinuity or dissociation) or an oblique fracture that separates the anterior column and dome from the posterior column (a much less common injury); and type III—a displaced fracture. By definition, if there is substantial displacement, the fixation of the cup will be compromised unless the fracture is somehow stabilized (Figs. 7-A and 7-B).

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 7-A: Figs. 7-A and 7-B A type-III intraoperative acetabular fracture of the floor and both columns of the acetabulum. Fig. 7-A Initial anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis, demonstrating the fracture.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 7-B: Anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis following open reduction and internal fixation of the acetabulum with an anterior column screw and a posterior column plate followed by acetabular reconstruction and implantation of a standard femoral component.

Although this classification has not been validated or widely utilized, it has been useful in the assessment and management of intraoperative acetabular fractures at our center.

Treatment and Results

The goal of treatment is to maximize hip function. Although the exact treatment methods may change over time, the principles include fracture stabilization, prevention of propagation of the fracture, maintenance of component alignment and stability, and achievement of fracture union^11,13,39.

Little attention has been paid in the literature to the treatment and outcome of intraoperative acetabular periprosthetic fractures. In the study by Sharkey et al.⁵⁵, of thirteen fractures, six were treated with additional acetabular screw fixation, two were deemed stable and not in need of additional fixation or a change in postoperative rehabilitation, and one did not require additional fixation but was treated with non-weight-bearing for eight weeks postoperatively. Fracture union was observed in all nine cases. The remaining four fractures, identified postoperatively, were associated with evidence of loosening on follow-up radiographs, and two required revision. While firm conclusions cannot be made on the basis of this study because of the small sample size, there is a trend toward failure if an unstable fracture is not stabilized, as was seen in the cases of the unrecognized fractures. We are not aware of any comparative studies in the literature regarding the treatment of acetabular fractures.

Della Valle et al.⁵⁶ offered recommendations for treatment of intraoperative acetabular fractures. According to these authors, when a patient has a nondisplaced fracture with a stable component, the prosthesis can be left in situ and standard total hip arthroplasty rehabilitation protocols may be applied. If the component is unstable, the structural integrity of the anterior and posterior columns must be assessed and supplemental screw fixation should be used if necessary. Consideration should be given to the use of a so-called jumbo revision cup if there is marked instability and bone loss that necessitates the use of a larger acetabular component. These fractures should be further treated with bone graft, and the patient should maintain protected weight-bearing postoperatively until the fracture has healed. If there is substantial motion at the fracture site, including the presence of pelvic dissociation, the posterior column should be treated with reduction and internal fixation (with, for example, a pelvic reconstruction plate on the posterior column; Figs. 7-A and 7-B). After the pelvis has been stabilized, the acetabulum may be reconstructed with standard techniques. We are not aware of any prospective studies in which these treatment recommendations were investigated.

Posterior column internal fixation alone may not be sufficient for some cases of pelvic dissociation; alternate techniques may be required. Fixation with a reconstruction cage and bone-grafting may be appropriate in such cases, as the cage will bridge from inferiorly to superiorly and allow temporary stabilization of the fracture while the bone graft incorporates and the fracture heals. If acetabular bone loss is so severe that a standard hemispherical cementless cup may provide unreliable fixation and bone ingrowth, an alternate fixation method may be required. Such cases may be treated with a porous tantalum substrate such as the one used for the Trabecular Metal Revision Cup (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana), which allows more predictable bone ingrowth. In 2005, Springer et al.⁵⁷ reported on seven women who had a delayed transverse fracture of the acetabulum after undergoing a revision total hip arthroplasty with a Trabecular Metal Cup. The authors thought that these fractures were not intraoperative but were related to the weak remaining bone stock, which failed after resumption of activity. The occurrence of these fractures and their displacement with time suggest that a cup that bridges from superiorly to inferiorly and has a high capacity for bone ingrowth may not be sufficient in cases of severe bone loss. For this reason, pelvic discontinuity should not be treated with a hemispherical cup alone. Instead, stability may be achieved by the addition of a reconstruction cage that is designed to fit within the cup and is fixed to the ischium inferiorly and to the ilium superiorly. An all-polyethylene cup can then be cemented into the reconstruction cage (Fig. 8). This is the so-called cup-cage-construct technique. Boscainos et al.⁵⁸ reported good early results in fourteen patients treated with the cup-cage construct, although the rate of recurrent dislocation was high, with two of the fourteen patients requiring revision to a constrained acetabular liner. Both of these studies^57,58 only described the use of this technique in revision total hip arthroplasty; consequently, the use of this technique for intraoperative acetabular fractures has not been reported, to our knowledge.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 8: Treatment of a posterior column fracture with open reduction and internal fixation with use of a pelvic reconstruction plate followed by acetabular reconstruction with a jumbo revision cup in the right hip. In the left hip, a type-III acetabular fracture was managed with a cup-cage construct.

Prevention of Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures

Prevention of periprosthetic fractures requires preoperative planning to assess risk factors associated with their occurrence^4,13. This includes obtaining a detailed history and formulating an operative plan. Full-length, adequate preoperative radiographs, including Judet views, should be made in order to fully appreciate any deformity or areas of bone loss that may increase susceptibility to fracture. All potential reconstructive options should be carefully planned with use of templates on preoperative radiographs to anticipate the likely sizes of the components. It should be emphasized that, if the implant chosen on the basis of the templating is not stable, the surgeon should carefully inspect the femur to make sure that there is no fracture that is creating instability and failure of fixation.

During the course of the operation, careful attention must be given to the parts of the procedure that are associated with the highest risk of fracture, such as hip dislocation, cement removal (in revision cases), canal preparation, and component insertion. Adequate soft-tissue releases are necessary to minimize the force required to obtain sufficient exposure. If necessary, adjunctive surgical strategies, such as an extended trochanteric osteotomy, should be considered. This is particularly relevant to the removal of well-fixed cementless and precoated cemented stems^11,49. The use of cerclage wires at the distal extent of a trochanteric osteotomy, or of a periprosthetic fracture, should be considered to prevent propagation of the fracture. Appropriate thin hemispherical osteotomes could be used for the acetabular component, and trephines should be used for the femoral stem¹³. During canal preparation, eccentric reaming should be avoided and consideration should be given to protecting areas of bone loss with cerclage wires or bone graft. In the setting of complex revision, intraoperative radiographs can be made to ensure central placement of the guidewire within the medullary canal prior to reaming. Immediate postoperative radiographs should be made to assess for potential fractures that were not appreciated intraoperatively.

Overview

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are an increasingly common problem. They are particularly likely to occur at the time of a revision total hip arthroplasty in which uncemented components are used. Appropriate steps should be taken to minimize the risk of fracture through the identification of high-risk situations. A high index of suspicion is required to identify possible fractures. The Vancouver classification^11,39 may be used to facilitate an understanding of the fracture pattern and to choose treatment. Management should be directed toward ensuring component stability, thereby maximizing the chance for fracture union and a satisfactory outcome. Future comparative studies of fixation techniques for intraoperative fractures are necessary to optimize management of these injuries. Image Not Available

References

Beals RK, Tower SS. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1996;327:238-46.327238 1996 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Berry DJ. Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am.1999;30:183-90.30183 1999 [CrossRef]

Christensen CM, Seger BM, Schultz RB. Management of intraoperative femur fractures associated with revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1989;248:177-80.248177 1989

Duwelius PJ, Schmidt AH, Kyle RF, Talbott V, Ellis TJ, Butler JB. A prospective, modernized treatment protocol for periprosthetic femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am.2004;35:485-92, vi.35485 2004 [CrossRef]

Franklin J, Malchau H. Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury.2007;38:655-60.38655 2007 [CrossRef]

Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect.1998;47:237-42.47237 1998

Kelley SS. Periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg.1994;2:164-72.2164 1994

Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect.1998;47:243-9.47243 1998

Lindahl H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury.2007;38:651-4.38651 2007 [CrossRef]

Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regnér H, Herberts P, Malchau H. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2006;88:1215-22.881215 2006 [CrossRef]

Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2004;420:80-95.42080 2004 [CrossRef]

McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Singer BR, Christie J. Results of an operative policy in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture. J Orthop Trauma.1997;11:170-9.11170 1997 [CrossRef]

Mitchell PA, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. The prevention of periprosthetic fractures of the femur during and after total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect.2003;52:301-8.52301 2003

Mont MA, Maar DC, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS. Hoop-stress fractures of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1992;74:257-60.74257 1992

Schwartz JT Jr, Mayer JG, Engh CA. Femoral fracture during non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1989;71:1135-42.711135 1989

Tower SS, Beals RK. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement: the Oregon experience. Orthop Clin North Am.1999;30:235-47.30235 1999 [CrossRef]

Callaghan JJ. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum during and following total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect.1998;47:231-5.47231 1998

Callaghan JJ, Kim YS, Pederson DR, Brown TD. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum. Orthop Clin North Am.1999;30:221-34.30221 1999 [CrossRef]

Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Intraoperative fractures of the acetabulum during primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2006;88:1952-6.881952 2006 [CrossRef]

Peterson CA, Lewallen DG. Periprosthetic fracture of the acetabulum after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1996;78:1206-13.781206 1996

Davis CM 3rd, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS. Cemented revision of failed uncemented femoral components of total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2003;85:1264-9.851264 2003

Egan KJ, Di Cesare PE. Intraoperative complications of revision hip arthroplasty using a fully porous-coated straight cobalt-chrome femoral stem. J Arthroplasty.1995;10 Suppl:S45-51.10S45 1995 [CrossRef]

Sarvilinna R, Huhtala HS, Sovelius RT, Halonen PJ, Nevalainen JK, Pajamäki KJ. Factors predisposing to periprosthetic fracture after hip arthroplasty: a case (n = 31)-control study. Acta Orthop Scand.2004;75:16-20.7516 2004

Taylor MM, Meyers MH, Harvey JP Jr. Intraoperative femur fractures during total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1978;137:96-103.13796 1978

Malkani AL, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME, Wallrichs SL. Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty.1996;11:411-8.11411 1996 [CrossRef]

Lerch M, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G, Thorey F. [Intraoperative femoral fractures during the implantation of the cementless BiCONTACT stem: a matched-pair analysis of 84 patients]. Z Orthop Unfall.2007;145:574-8. German.145574 2007 [CrossRef]

Issack PS, Guerin J, Butler A, Marwin SE, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Barrack RL, Di Cesare PE. Intraoperative complications of revision hip arthroplasty using a porous-coated, distally slotted, fluted femoral stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2004;425:173-6.425173 2004 [CrossRef]

Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1993;75:14-21.7514 1993

Leopold SS, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Jacobs JJ, Quigley LR, Galante JO. Impaction allografting with cement for revision of the femoral component. A minimum four-year follow-up study with use of a precoated femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1999;81:1080-92.811080 1999

Pekkarinen J, Alho A, Lepistö J, Ylikoski M, Ylinen P, Paavilainen T. Impaction bone grafting in revision hip surgery. A high incidence of complications. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2000;82:103-7.82103 2000 [CrossRef]

Piccaluga F, González Della Valle A, Encinas Fernández JC, Pusso R. Revision of the femoral prosthesis with impaction allografting and a Charnley stem. A 2- to 12-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2002;84:544-9.84544 2002 [CrossRef]

Ornstein E, Atroshi I, Franzén H, Johnsson R, Sandquist P, Sundberg M. Early complications after one hundred and forty-four consecutive hip revisions with impacted morselized allograft bone and cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2002;84:1323-8.841323 2002

Halliday BR, English HW, Timperley AJ, Gie GA, Ling RS. Femoral impaction grafting with cement in revision total hip replacement. Evolution of the technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2003;85:809-17.85809 2003

Farfalli GL, Buttaro MA, Piccaluga F. Femoral fractures in revision hip surgeries with impacted bone allograft. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2007;462:130-6.462130 2007 [CrossRef]

Asayama I, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM. Two-year experience using a limited-incision direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2006;21:1083-91.211083 2006 [CrossRef]

Moroni A, Faldini C, Piras F, Giannini S. Risk factors for intraoperative femoral fractures during total hip replacement. Ann Chir Gynaecol.2000;89:113-8.89113 2000

Meek RM, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Duncan CP. Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2004;86:480-5.86480 2004

Learmonth ID. The management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2004;86:13-9.8613 2004

Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect.1995;44:293-304.44293 1995

Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty.2000;15:59-62.1559 2000 [CrossRef]

Larson JE, Chao EY, Fitzgerald RH. Bypassing femoral cortical defects with cemented intramedullary stems. J Orthop Res.1991;9:414-21.9414 1991 [CrossRef]

Khan MA, O'Driscoll M. Fractures of the femur during total hip replacement and their management. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1977;59:36-41.5936 1977

Chappell JD, Lachiewicz PF. Fracture of the femur in revision hip arthroplasty with a fully porous-coated component. J Arthroplasty.2005;20:234-8.20234 2005 [CrossRef]

Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Chonko DJ, Dodds KL, Adams JB. Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years. J Arthroplasty.2004;19 (7 Suppl 2):17-21.1917 2004

Paprosky WG, Aribindi R. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect.2000;49:119-30.49119 2000

Schmotzer H, Tchejeyan GH, Dall DM. Surgical management of intra- and postoperative fractures of the femur about the tip of the stem in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.1996;11:709-17.11709 1996 [CrossRef]

Dennis MG, Simon JA, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, DiCesare PE. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques. J Arthroplasty.2000;15:523-8.15523 2000 [CrossRef]

Kuptniratsaikul S, Brohmwitak C, Techapongvarachai T, Itiravivong P. Plate-screw-wiring technique for the treatment of periprosthetic fracture around the hip: a biomechanical study. J Med Assoc Thai.2001;84 Suppl 1:S415-22.84S415 2001

Wilson D, Frei H, Masri BA, Oxland TR, Duncan CP. A biomechanical study comparing cortical onlay allograft struts and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2005;20:70-6.2070 2005 [CrossRef]

Adler E, Stuchin SA, Kummer FJ. Stability of press-fit acetabular cups. J Arthroplasty.1992;7:295-301.7295 1992 [CrossRef]

Curtis MJ, Jinnah RH, Wilson VD, Hungerford DS. The initial stability of uncemented acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1992;74:372-6.74372 1992

MacKenzie JR, Callaghan JJ, Pedersen DR, Brown TD. Areas of contact and extent of gaps with implantation of oversized acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1994;298:127-36.298127 1994

Stiehl JB, MacMillan E, Skrade DA. Mechanical stability of porous-coated acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.1991;6:295-300.6295 1991 [CrossRef]

McElfresh EC, Coventry MB. Femoral and pelvic fractures after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1974;56:483-92.56483 1974

Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Callaghan JJ, Kim YS, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD, LeWallen DG. Acetabular fracture associated with cementless acetabular component insertion: a report of 13 cases. J Arthroplasty.1999;14:426-31.14426 1999 [CrossRef]

Della Valle CJ, Momberger NG, Paprosky WG. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum associated with a total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect.2003;52:281-90.52281 2003

Springer BD, Berry DJ, Cabanela ME, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Early postoperative transverse pelvic fracture: a new complication related to revision arthroplasty with an uncemented cup. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2005;87:2626-31.872626 2005 [CrossRef]

Boscainos PJ, Kellett CF, Maury AC, Backstein D, Gross AE. Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2007;465:159-65.465159 2007

Topics

fracture ; femoral fractures ; femur ; hip replacement arthroplasty ; osteopenia ; acetabulum fractures ; allografting ; periprosthetic fractures ; cerclage wire

Username

Password

Access for Patients

Forgot Password?

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Not a Subscriber?

Buy this Article

Get online access for 30 days for $35

New to JBJS?

Subscribe to the online edition for 30 days for $75

Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.

Activate your online account now

Forgot your password?

Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

Username:*

Email Address:*

Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

References

Accreditation Statement

These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

CME Activities Associated with This Article

Submit a Comment

Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s) * (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Comment Title*

Comment*

Cancel

Print
PDF
Email

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link (good for 5 days) to 'Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty: Evaluation and Management'.
Your Name:*
Example: John Doe

Email Address:* CC Me:
Enter your valid email address. Example: jdoe@example.com

Recipient's Email Address:*

Separate multiple email address with semi-colons (up to 5).

Subject:* 's The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: 'Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty: Evaluation and Management'
Subject for your email.

Message:

(Optional, message will truncate at 1000 characters)

Processing your request... Please Wait...

Copyright © in the material you requested is held by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc. (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc.'s Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc.'s Privacy Policy for further information.

Copyright © The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc. All rights reserved.
Share
Get Citation

Darin Davidson, Jeffrey Pike, Donald Garbuz, Clive P. Duncan, Bassam A. Masri; Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip ArthroplastyEvaluation and Management. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2008 Sep;90(9):2000-2012.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

Copyright © The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Rights & Permissions
Article Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.
Submit a Comment
Data Supplements