Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures treatment: fix or replace? A retrospective study comparing both techniques

• Published in: European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology 2024-05, Vol.34 (4), p.2055-2063
• Main Authors: Lara-Taranchenko, Yuri, Nomdedéu, Josep F., Barro, Víctor M., Peiró, José V. Andrés, Guerra-Farfán, Ernesto, Selga, Jordi, Tomás-Hernández, Jordi, Teixidor Serra, Jordi, Molero, Vicente, Collado, Diego, Mimendia, Iñaki, Hernández, Alejandro, Porcel-Vázquez, Juan A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods; Female; Fracture Fixation, Internal - adverse effects; Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods; Fractures; Hip Fractures - mortality; Hip Fractures - surgery; Hip joint; Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Mortality; Open Fracture Reduction - adverse effects; Open Fracture Reduction - methods; Operative Time; Original Article; Orthopedics; Periprosthetic Fractures - etiology; Periprosthetic Fractures - surgery; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Traumatic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1432-1068; 1633-8065; 1432-1068
• DOI: 10.1007/s00590-024-03881-2

Introduction Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures involve stem stability and they have been classically treated with revision surgery. Crucial factors such as age, clinical comorbidities and functional status are often neglected. The current study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or femoral stem exchange. Methods This is a retrospective study that includes all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures in a tertiary referral hospital from 2016 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1. Patients treated with an ORIF and Group 2. Patients treated with stem replacement. The outcomes that were compared between groups included demographic data, functional capacity, complications and mortality. Results 29 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures were finally analyzed. 11 (37.9%) were treated with ORIF (Group 1) and 18 (62.1%) by stem replacement (Group 2). Surgery time (143 vs. 160 min), hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.5 g/dL) and hospital stance (25.5 vs. 29.6 days) were shorter in Group 1. According to complications, 18.2% of patients in the ORIF group had orthopedic complications compared with 44.4% in the revision group. In the revision group, 3 cases needed a two-stage revision and one of these revisions ended up with a resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone). The first-year mortality rate was 27% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2. Discussion ORIF treatment seems to be a less aggressive and complex procedure which can lead to a faster general recovery. Revision surgery can imply a higher risk of orthopedic complications which can be severe and may require further aggressive solutions. The ORIF group mortality was similar to the proximal femur fracture rate (20–30%). In conclusion, ORIF treatment seems to be a good option especially in fragile patients with low functional demand when anatomical reduction is possible.