Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip Fractures Vancouver B1 and C: The Significance of Bicortical Fixation. A Bicentric Study Comparing Two Osteosynthesis Systems.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PFFs) is estimated to range from 0.1% to 4.1%1, due to the increasing prevalence of joint arthroplasties, coupled with an aging population. Numerous risk factors, including advanced age (>80 years), female gender, implant type, prior diagnoses of osteonecrosis and rheumatoid arthritis, revision surgery, aseptic stem mobilization, and the use of non-cemented stems, have been identified. Survivors of periprosthetic fractures often experience functional deterioration, facing a fourfold higher risk of hospitalization for postoperative complications compared to patients undergoing primary implantation, especially in the first postoperative year. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 2018 and 2022, at the Maggiore Hospitals in Bologna and the San Matteo Policlinic in Pavia, we performed osteosynthesis on 84 patients with periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B1 or C. In 38 patients, we employed angular stable plates with the Zimmer Biomet NCB-PP® system. In 46 patients, we utilized INTRAUMA plates: DF distal femur and PFF proximal. Relevant postoperative follow-up outcomes considered included reintervention, infectious complications, radiographic healing, and functional recovery, with reference to changes in the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and the Harris Hip Score (HHS). All patients underwent clinical and radiographic evaluations during the follow-up period, averaging 28 months (range: 12-48 months), with a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months. RESULTS At the 4-month postoperative assessment, 71% of patients maintained their preoperative functional level, 19% experienced a 1-point GOS scale drop, and 10% died (GOS 5). The average HHS at 4 months was 80.2 points (range: 65-90). At the 6-month follow-up, 98.2% of patients achieved complete healing on radiographic examination. Only 1 patient (1.2%) developed a pseudoarthrosis site with synthesis device rupture. Only 1 patient (1.2%) required additional surgical treatment 2 years later due to the development of un aseptic perisynthetic fluid collection, while the remaining 5 patients (6%) who developed complications benefited from conservative treatment: 4 patients (3.6%) with infectious complications were treated with intravenous antibiotics. In the 2 patients (2.3%) with mobilization or rupture of synthesis devices, clinical and radiographic monitoring was opted for. 8 patients (10.7%) died: one 48 hours after the surgery, and the other 7 more than one month after the surgery. CONCLUSION Our clinical findings align with to existing scientific literature on periprosthetic fractures (B1 and C according to Vancouver classification). Moreover, good stability has been guaranteed at the radiological follow up by Zimmer Biomet NCB-PP® and INTRAUMA DF distal femur and PFF proximal plates. The locking construct allows for improved stability especially in osteoporotic bone.