A Consecutive Series of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Contemporary Monoblock Versus Modular Revision Stems: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

被引:1
|
作者
Siljander, Breana R. [1 ]
Chandi, Sonia K. [1 ]
Coxe, Francesca R. [1 ]
Nguyen, Joseph T. [1 ]
Sculco, Peter K. [1 ]
Chalmers, Brian P. [1 ]
Bostrom, Mathias P. [1 ]
Gausden, Elizabeth B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Special Surg, Dept Orthoped Surg, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY | 2024年 / 39卷 / 09期
关键词
total hip arthroplasty; modular stem; monoblock stem; revision; periprosthetic femur fracture; TOTAL HIP-ARTHROPLASTY; FLUTED TITANIUM STEMS; FEMORAL REVISION; TAPERED STEMS; DISTAL FIXATION; SHORT-TERM; SUBSIDENCE; DIFFERENCE; MANAGEMENT; FAILURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.arth.2024.03.046
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are the implant design of choice for managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs), producing reliable results over the past few decades. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with contemporary monoblock versus modular TFTs. Methods: A consecutive series of 113 patients ( 72 women, 64%, mean age 70 years [range, 26 to 96]) who had a B2 PFF were treated with either a monoblock (n = 42) or modular (n = 71) TFT stem between 2008 and 2021. The mean body mass index was 30 +/- 7. The mean follow-up was 2.9 years. A radiographic review was performed to assess leg length and offset restoration, endosteal cortical contact length, and stem subsidence. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine survivorship without revision, reoperation, or dislocation. Results: There was no difference in the restoration of leg length (0.3 +/- 8.0 mm) or offset (2.8 +/- 8.2 mm) between the monoblock and modular cohorts (P > .05). Mean endosteal cortical contact length (47.2 +/- 26.6 versus 46.7 +/- 2 6.4 mm, P 1/4 .89) and stem subsidence (2.7 +/- 3.5 versus 2.4 +/- 3.2 mm, P 1/4 .66) did not differ. No difference in patient-reported outcome measures (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement; Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical and Mental; visual analog score; and Lower Extremity Activity Scale) between the groups was observed. Survivorship at 2 years free from reoperation, revision, and dislocation was 90.4, 90.3, and 97.6%, respectively, for the monoblock cohort; and 84.0, 86.9, and 90.0%, respectively, for the modular cohort. Conclusions: No significant differences in radiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between patients treated with monoblock or modular TFTs in this large series of B2 PFFs. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:S213 / S219
页数:7
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [21] Distal fixation with Wagner revision stem in treating Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femur fractures in geriatric patients
    Ko, PS
    Lam, JJ
    Tio, MK
    Lee, OB
    Ip, FK
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2003, 18 (04): : 446 - 452
  • [22] Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review
    Stoffel, Karl
    Blauth, Michael
    Joeris, Alexander
    Blumenthal, Andrea
    Rometsch, Elke
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2020, 140 (10) : 1381 - 1394
  • [23] Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: clinical and radiological outcomes from a tertiary care center
    Stefano Tornago
    Luca Cavagnaro
    Lorenzo Mosconi
    Francesco Chiarlone
    Andrea Zanirato
    Nicolò Patroniti
    Matteo Formica
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2023, 143 : 6919 - 6926
  • [24] Comparable outcomes of in-cement revision and uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture at 5 years
    Antonio Klasan
    James Millar
    Jonathan Quayle
    Bill Farrington
    Peter Nicholas Misur
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2022, 142 : 1039 - 1046
  • [25] Cementless, modular, titanium stem in Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures
    Zampieri, A.
    Lukas, S.
    Ibrahim, M.
    Talbi, A.
    Prodhomme, G.
    Chantelot, C.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY, 2023, 33 (04): : 1133 - 1139
  • [26] Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty
    Gonzalez-Martin, David
    Pais-Brito, Jose Luis
    Gonzalez-Casamayor, Sergio
    Guerra-Ferraz, Ayron
    Ojeda-Jimenez, Jorge
    Herrera-Perez, Mario
    EFORT OPEN REVIEWS, 2022, 7 (08) : 533 - 541
  • [27] Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures Treated With Open Reduction Internal Fixation
    Christ, Alexander B.
    Chawla, Harshvardhan
    Gausden, Elizabeth B.
    Villa, Jordan C.
    Wellman, David S.
    Lorich, Dean G.
    Helfet, David L.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA, 2018, 32 (10) : 515 - 520
  • [28] Hip Revision Arthroplasty of Periprosthetic Fractures Vancouver B2 and B3 with a Modular Revision Stem: Short-Term Results and Review of Literature
    Schreiner, Anna Janine
    Steidle, Christoph
    Schmidutz, Florian
    Gonser, Christoph
    Hemmann, Philipp
    Stoeckle, Ulrich
    Ochs, Gunnar
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND UNFALLCHIRURGIE, 2022, 160 (01): : 40 - 48
  • [29] Outcomes of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients
    Moreta, Jesus
    Uriarte, Iker
    Ormaza, Amaia
    Mosquera, Javier
    Iza, Kattalin
    Aguirre, Urko
    Jose Legarreta, Maria
    Luis Martinez-De Los Mozos, Jose
    HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 29 (02) : 184 - 190
  • [30] Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty
    Joestl, Julian
    Hofbauer, Marcus
    Lang, Nikolaus
    Tiefenboeck, Thomas
    Hajdu, Stefan
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2016, 47 (04): : 939 - 943