Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Aims Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with Vancouver type B3 fractures with Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, and IV femoral defects are difficult to treat. One option for Paprovsky type IIIB and IV defects involves modular cementless, tapered, revision femoral components in conjunction with distal interlocking screws. The aim of this study was to analyze the rate of reoperations and complications and union of the fracture, subsidence of the stem, mortality, and the clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods A total of 46 femoral components in patients with Vancouver B3 fractures (23 with Paprosky type IIIA, 19 with type IIIB, and four with type IV defects) in 46 patients were revised with a transfemoral approach using a modular, tapered, cementless revision Revitan curved femoral component with distal cone-in-cone fixation and prospectively followed for a mean of 48.8 months (SD 23.9; 24 to 112). The mean age of the patients was 80.4 years (66 to 100). Additional distal interlocking was also used in 23 fractures in which distal cone-in-cone fixation in the isthmus was < 3 cm. Results One patient (2.2%) died during the first postoperative year. After six months, 43 patients (93.5%) had osseous, and three had fibrous consolidation of the fracture and the bony flap, 42 (91.3%) had bony ingrowth and four had stable fibrous fixation of the stem. No patient had radiolucency around the interlocking screws and no screw broke. One patient had non-progressive subsidence and two had a dislocation. The mean Harris Hip Score increased from of 57.8 points (SD 7.9) three months postoperatively to 76.1 points (SD 10.7) 24 months postoperatively. Conclusion The 2° tapered, fluted revision femoral component with distal cone-in-cone-fixation, combined with additional distal interlocking in patients with bony deficiency at the isthmus, led to reproducibly good results in patients with a Vancouver B3 fracture and Paprosky type IIIA, IIIB, and IV defects with regard to union of the fracture, subsidence or loosening of the stem, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):344–351.
Fink et al. (Mon,) studied this question.