A multicentre comparative analysis of fixation versus revision surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with a cemented polished taper-slip femoral component

Bone Joint J. 2023 Feb;105-B(2):124-134. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.105B2.BJJ-2022-0685.R1.


Aims: The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods: Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint.

Results: A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%).

Conclusion: Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124-134.

Keywords: Cemented femoral component; Hip; Kaplan-Meier survival analysis; Periprosthetic fracture; anatomical reconstruction; femoral components; open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); periprosthetic femoral fractures; periprosthetic fractures; primary total hip arthroplasty; revision surgery; taper-slip stems; total hip arthroplasty.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip* / adverse effects
  • Femoral Fractures* / etiology
  • Femoral Fractures* / surgery
  • Femur
  • Humans
  • Periprosthetic Fractures* / etiology
  • Periprosthetic Fractures* / surgery
  • Reoperation