Undetected Intraoperative Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review

Abstract

Objective Periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be catastrophic, and early detection and appropriate management are vital to the overall prognosis. This study aimed to describe and summarize the features of undetected intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IPFFs) in primary THA patients and treatment measures and to review the relevant literature. Methods We reviewed a total of 6350 primary THAs performed at our institution between January 2013 and December 2020 and screened all IPFFs. Of 138 IPFFs, 24 were undetected and met the inclusion criteria. We recorded and compared basic patient and operative information and measured some parameters to evaluate canal morphologies based on preoperative radiographs. We also compared fracture line characteristics using postoperative radiographs to summarize the features of intraoperative fractures and propose treatment strategies. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to test the normality of the variable distributions. Measured parameters in all groups were analyzed using one‐way analysis of variance and compared using Dunnett's test. The χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare reoperation rates across the groups. Interrater and intrarater reliability were evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients. Results Among the 24 hips, there was no significant difference in patient demographics, basic operative information or morphology. The incidence of IPFFs in primary THA patients was 2.17%, and up to 17.4% of IPFFs were undetected until postoperative fluoroscopy. The incidence of undetected IPFFs among all primary THA patients was 0.38% and varied by stem type, with the highest incidence in femurs with either anatomical (1.04%, 4/385) or modular stems (0.90%, 9/1003). Femurs with anatomical stems had a higher reoperation rate. The distal periprosthetic (Gruen zone 4) fracture line of femurs with tapered stems was more prone to involve the medial or lateral bone cortex, which could cause instability. Conclusion An undetected IPFF is most likely in femurs fitted with a prosthesis of an inappropriate size or type. Anatomical stems will most likely cause unstable fractures; thus, it is recommended to use them with caution and note the possibility of medial distal femoral fracture. Improper modular stem type or size selection results in longitudinal fractures of the distal femur, and prophylactic cerclage wire binding is recommended in dysplastic hips. Incorrect use of tapered stems in well‐ossified femurs may cause distal femoral fractures involving the medial or lateral bone cortex. Intraoperative fluoroscopy after implantation may help detect hidden fractures.

Exploring Individualized Approaches to Managing Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Insights from a Comprehensive Case Series Analysis

“…The selection of implants also significantly influences the incidence of PFFs. Cementless stems exhibit a significantly elevated incidence of intraoperative fractures, approximately 14 times greater than that observed in cemented stems [3,11,12]. Moreover, the design characteristics of cemented stems, such as the choice between taper-slip and composite beam designs, have been demonstrated to have a substantial influence on the likelihood of PFFs, although there is a scarcity of data available on this particular topic [8,10,13].…”

Insights from a Comprehensive Case Series Analysis: Exploring Individualized Approaches to Managing Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

“…The selection of implants also significantly influences the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs). Cementless stems exhibit a significantly elevated incidence of intraoperative fractures, approximately 14 times greater than that observed in cemented stems [3,12]. Moreover, the design characteristics of cemented stems, such as the choice between taper-slip and composite beam designs, have been demonstrated to have a substantial influence on the likelihood of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs), although there is a scarcity of data available on this particular topic [8,10,13].…”