Advertisement

Femur Strength is Similar Before and After Iatrogenic Fracture During Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Analysis

Open AccessPublished:April 04, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2022.02.007

      Abstract

      Background

      The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength of femurs before an iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture vs after an initial fracture with supporting cerclage fixation during cementless total hip arthroplasty.

      Material and methods

      Nineteen composite femurs and 5 matched pairs of cadaveric femurs were implanted with a single-wedge or dual-wedge tapered femoral stem and tested for ultimate load to failure producing a periprosthetic fracture. Following initial fracture, each femur was cerclaged with Vitallium cables and retested for ultimate load to failure. The mean force eliciting iatrogenic fracture before cabling and that after cabling were compared with a two-sided paired Student’s t-test.

      Results

      All composite femurs developed periprosthetic fractures with an average length extension from the calcar of 75.17 mm. For the 19 composite femurs, the mean ultimate load to failure before cabling and that after cabling were not significantly different (2422.95 N vs 2505.14 N, P = .678). For the 10 cadaveric femurs, the mean ultimate load to failure for the initial fracture vs that after cabling was statistically comparable (5828.62 N vs 7002.63 N, P = .126). Subanalysis of the 5 cadaveric femurs with a double-wedge stem revealed a significantly higher mean load to failure following cabling (5007.38 N vs 7811.17 N, P = .011).

      Conclusion

      Biomechanical strength was similar for femurs that sustained an initial iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture and the same femurs cabled with cerclage wires after being fractured. These data may assist in operative decision-making for treating iatrogenic fractures during total hip arthroplasty.

      Keywords

      Introduction

      Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a highly successful operation with greater than 85% survivorship at 25-year follow-up [
      • Caton J.
      • Prudhon J.L.
      Over 25 years survival after Charnley's total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Berry D.J.
      • Harmsen W.S.
      • Cabanela M.E.
      • Morrey B.F.
      Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components.
      ]. It has been revolutionary in improving quality of life for patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis [
      • Learmonth I.D.
      • Young C.
      • Rorabeck C.
      The operation of the century: total hip replacement.
      ,
      • Białkowska M.
      • Stołtny T.
      • Pasek J.
      • et al.
      Quality of life of men after cementless hip replacement - a pilot study.
      ]. The annual volume of THA performed in the inpatient setting in the United States is projected to increase by 71% by the year 2030, [
      • Sloan M.
      • Premkumar A.
      • Sheth N.P.
      Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030.
      ] which notably does not account for increasing trends of outpatient THA [
      • Bordoni V.
      • Marelli N.
      • Previtali D.
      • Gaffurini P.
      • Filardo G.
      • Candrian C.
      Outpatient total hip arthroplasty does not increase complications and readmissions: a meta-analysis.
      ,
      • Arshi A.
      • Leong N.L.
      • Wang C.
      • Buser Z.
      • Wang J.C.
      • SooHoo N.F.
      Outpatient total hip arthroplasty in the United States: a population-based comparative analysis of complication rates.
      ]. Early THA most commonly involved various types of cemented femoral stems which demonstrated high long-term survivorship [
      • Callaghan J.J.
      • Albright J.C.
      • Goetz D.D.
      • Olejniczak J.P.
      • Johnston R.C.
      Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement. Minimum twenty-five-year follow-up.
      ,
      • Okutani Y.
      • Goto K.
      • Kuroda Y.
      • et al.
      Long-term outcome of cemented total hip arthroplasty with the Charnley-type femoral stem made of titanium alloy.
      ]. Although previously utilized in only half of all THA procedures, modern cementless THA implants have gained popularity in the United States with contemporary utilization higher than 93% [
      • Lehil M.S.
      • Bozic K.J.
      Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States.
      ].
      Although THA is a remarkably successful operation, common etiologies of failure include instability [
      • Flick T.R.
      • Ross B.J.
      • Sherman W.F.
      Instability after total hip arthroplasty and the role of advanced and robotic technology.
      ], aseptic loosening [
      • Cherian J.J.
      • Jauregui J.J.
      • Banerjee S.
      • Pierce T.
      • Mont M.A.
      What host factors affect aseptic loosening after THA and TKA?.
      ], infection [
      • Lindeque B.
      • Hartman Z.
      • Noshchenko A.
      • Cruse M.
      Infection after primary total hip arthroplasty.
      ], and periprosthetic fracture [
      • Abdel M.P.
      • Watts C.D.
      • Houdek M.T.
      • Lewallen D.G.
      • Berry D.J.
      Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience.
      ]. During cementless THA, it is imperative that surgeons obtain initial mechanical stability of the femoral stem to reduce micromotion and increase bony fixation [
      • Galante J.
      • Rostoker W.
      • Lueck R.
      • Ray R.D.
      Sintered fiber metal composites as a basis for attachment of implants to bone.
      ,
      • Wagner M.
      • Knorr-Held F.
      • Hohmann D.
      Measuring stability of wire cerclage in femoral fractures when performing total hip replacement. In vitro study on a standardized bone model.
      ]. A known complication during femoral preparation is iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture, which is estimated to occur in 1.5%-27.8% of cases and is more common in uncemented THA [
      • Wagner M.
      • Knorr-Held F.
      • Hohmann D.
      Measuring stability of wire cerclage in femoral fractures when performing total hip replacement. In vitro study on a standardized bone model.
      ,
      • Mont M.A.
      • Maar D.C.
      • Krackow K.A.
      • Hungerford D.S.
      Hoop-stress fractures of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases.
      ,
      • Berend K.R.
      • Lombardi A.V.
      Intraoperative femur fracture is associated with stem and instrument design in primary total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Berend K.R.
      • Lombardi A.V.
      • Mallory T.H.
      • Chonko D.J.
      • Dodds K.L.
      • Adams J.B.
      Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years.
      ,
      • Herzwurm P.J.
      • Walsh J.
      • Pettine K.A.
      • Ebert F.R.
      Prophylactic cerclage: a method of preventing femur fracture in uncemented total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Nowak M.
      • Kusz D.
      • Wojciechowski P.
      • Wilk R.
      Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during the total hip arthroplasty.
      ]. Unrecognized iatrogenic fractures can propagate and decrease initial mechanical stability, [
      • Fishkin Z.
      • Han S.M.
      • Ziv I.
      Cerclage wiring technique after proximal femoral fracture in total hip arthroplasty.
      ] leading to early loosening and revision [
      • Mont M.A.
      • Maar D.C.
      • Krackow K.A.
      • Hungerford D.S.
      Hoop-stress fractures of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases.
      ,
      • Fishkin Z.
      • Han S.M.
      • Ziv I.
      Cerclage wiring technique after proximal femoral fracture in total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Reddy A.V.G.
      • Eachempati K.K.
      • Mugalur A.
      • Suchinder A.
      • Rao V.B.N.P.
      • Kamurukuru N.
      Undisplaced intraoperative fracture presenting as early dislocation with tapered wedge stems in total hip arthroplasty - case series and Review of literature.
      ].
      Iatrogenic periprosthetic fractures during THA may display various fracture morphologies, ranging from nondisplaced calcar fractures to displaced fractures extending to the proximal shaft [
      • Miettinen S.S.
      • Mäkinen T.J.
      • Kostensalo I.
      • et al.
      Risk factors for intraoperative calcar fracture in cementless total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Ricci W.M.
      Periprosthetic femur fractures.
      ]. Management options include extramedullary fixation with cerclage cables and reinsertion of the initial femoral stem, the use of longer tapered or modular distally fixed stems, open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws, and strut grafts [
      • Ricci W.M.
      Periprosthetic femur fractures.
      ,
      • Lamb J.N.
      • Baetz J.
      • Messer-Hannemann P.
      • et al.
      A calcar collar is protective against early periprosthetic femoral fracture around cementless femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty: a registry study with biomechanical validation.
      ,
      • Pike J.
      • Davidson D.
      • Garbuz D.
      • Duncan C.P.
      • O'Brien P.J.
      • Masri B.A.
      Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Ehlinger M.
      • Adam P.
      • Di Marco A.
      • Arlettaz Y.
      • Moor B.K.
      • Bonnomet F.
      Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by locked plating: feasibility assessment of the mini-invasive surgical option. A prospective series of 36 fractures.
      ,
      • Fink B.
      • Oremek D.
      Hip revision arthroplasty for failed osteosynthesis in periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures using a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem.
      ,
      • Pavone V.
      • de Cristo C.
      • Di Stefano A.
      • Costarella L.
      • Testa G.
      • Sessa G.
      Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty: an algorithm of treatment.
      ]. Numerous studies have reported no significant impact on survivorship as compared to controls when these fractures are identified and treated promptly [
      • Mont M.A.
      • Maar D.C.
      • Krackow K.A.
      • Hungerford D.S.
      Hoop-stress fractures of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases.
      ,
      • Berend K.R.
      • Lombardi A.V.
      • Mallory T.H.
      • Chonko D.J.
      • Dodds K.L.
      • Adams J.B.
      Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years.
      ,
      • Ferbert T.
      • Jaber A.
      • Gress N.
      • Schmidmaier G.
      • Gotterbarm T.
      • Merle C.
      Impact of intraoperative femoral fractures in primary hip arthroplasty: a comparative study with a mid-term follow-up.
      ,
      • Ponzio D.Y.
      • Shahi A.
      • Park A.G.
      • Purtill J.J.
      Intraoperative proximal femoral fracture in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Park C.W.
      • Lim S.J.
      • Ye D.H.
      • Park Y.S.
      Outcomes of cerclage cabling for intraoperative calcar cracks in cementless total hip arthroplasty using broach-only, tapered wedge stems.
      ].
      Prior studies have analyzed the relative efficacy of different fixation constructs in stabilizing iatrogenic periprosthetic fractures [
      • Frisch N.B.
      • Charters M.A.
      • Sikora-Klak J.
      • Banglmaier R.F.
      • Oravec D.J.
      • Silverton C.D.
      Intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture: a biomechanical analysis of cerclage fixation.
      ,
      • Lenz M.
      • Perren S.M.
      • Richards R.G.
      • et al.
      Biomechanical performance of different cable and wire cerclage configurations.
      ,
      • Dennis M.G.
      • Simon J.A.
      • Kummer F.J.
      • Koval K.J.
      • DiCesare P.E.
      Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques.
      ,
      • Talbot M.
      • Zdero R.
      • Schemitsch E.H.
      Cyclic loading of periprosthetic fracture fixation constructs.
      ], as well as the potential risk reduction of sustaining such fractures with prophylactic cabling [
      • Herzwurm P.J.
      • Walsh J.
      • Pettine K.A.
      • Ebert F.R.
      Prophylactic cerclage: a method of preventing femur fracture in uncemented total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Waligora A.C.
      • Owen J.R.
      • Wayne J.S.
      • Hess S.R.
      • Golladay G.J.
      • Jiranek W.A.
      The effect of prophylactic cerclage wires in primary total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical study.
      ]. However, the ultimate strength of a femur with a tapered stem and cerclage wires after an iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture relative to the initial biomechanical strength of the same femur has not been described. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength of femurs before an iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture vs that after an initial fracture with supporting cerclage fixation.

      Material and methods

      After obtaining approval from our institutional review board (IRB #2021-060), 2 cementless femoral stem types with differing geometry from Stryker (Stryker Ltd., Kalamazoo, MI) were investigated: the Stryker Accolade II and the Stryker Secur-Fit Advanced (SFA) as seen in Figure 1. These 2 stem types were chosen to represent the most common tapered stem geometries typically used in THA: the single-wedge (Accolade II) and the dual-wedge (SFA) geometry [
      • Khanuja H.S.
      • Vakil J.J.
      • Goddard M.S.
      • Mont M.A.
      Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty.
      ].
      Figure thumbnail gr1
      Figure 1(a) Stryker SFA implant representative of dual-wedge femoral stem geometry. (b) Stryker Accolade II implant representative of single-wedge femoral stem geometry.

      Cadaveric specimen preparation

      Cadavers in this study were screened to include those with no history of musculoskeletal disease, defects, or previous surgeries. After obtaining specimens from Science Care (Phoenix, AZ), 5 pairs of matched cadaveric femurs were procured from 3 male and 2 female donors (age range 66-90 years, mean 81.6 ± 9.8 years). Prior to harvesting all femurs, computed tomography (CT) scans were performed to template the appropriate-size implant to mitigate any undersized or oversized stems (Fig. 2). Based on the Dorr classification, the femurs from cadavers 1, 3, and 4 were classified as type B bone, and the femurs from cadavers 2 and 5 were classified as type B/C bone. All left femurs were designated the appropriately sized Stryker Accolade II femoral stem, and all right femurs were designated the appropriately sized Stryker SFA femoral stem as there was no difference in bone quality or size between right and left.
      Figure thumbnail gr2
      Figure 2CT scanning and templating for SFA stem.
      After templating based on CT scans, the femoral neck osteotomy was created proximal to the lesser trochanter on each femur in the correct angle and position according to the preoperative template. The canal was prepared by reaming and broaching the SFA stems to the appropriate-size implant per system guide, and for the Accolade II, a broach-only system was used per implant guide recommendations. All right-sided femurs were implanted with the SFA, and all Accolade II stems were placed in the left side of the cadavers. A second validation was performed using X-ray to ensure the broach was in the appropriate position, and the stem was appropriately sized to ensure there were no undersized stems (Fig. 3). After broaching was performed and the final stem was inserted, the femurs were visually inspected to ensure there were no fractures created. To standardize the length of the femur mechanically, the distal end of each femur was cut so that 80% of the total length of the femur remained. The intramedullary canal of the distal end of the femur was cemented with a 1/2 in. × 4 in. tapered steel rod using Stryker Simplex HV cement (Stryker Ltd., Kalamazoo, MI) in a neutral position. The tapered steel rod was inserted into a custom holder for the MTS so that the femoral canal representing a neutral mechanical axis is at 0° angle. The femurs were immediately tested after implanting the final femoral stem to mitigate dehydration and represent a surgical environment.
      Figure thumbnail gr3
      Figure 3Second validation of stem sizing using X-ray; the image shows Accolade II size 8 stem broach in place.

      Composite bone model preparation

      Twenty commercially available composite osteoporotic femurs with 10 pounds per cubic foot solid foam and 16-mm canal models from Sawbones USA (Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon Island, WA) were used for this investigation. The uniform size, shape, and material properties were used to reduce the variability often associated with the use of human cadaveric bones and have been shown to be accurate in mechanical testing [
      • Wähnert D.
      • Hoffmeier K.L.
      • Klos K.
      • et al.
      Biomechanical characterization of an osteoporotic artificial bone model for the distal femur.
      ].
      Each composite femur was prepared in the same method as the cadavers resulting in 10 specimens receiving an SFA stem and 10 receiving an Accolade II stem. One Accolade II specimen was excluded due to a mechanical malfunction of the MTS machine, which prevented data collection. Therefore, 10 composite Sawbone femurs with an SFA stem and 9 composite Sawbone femurs with an Accolade II stem underwent biomechanical testing.

      Mechanical testing

      Each femur was loaded in a biaxial servohydraulic test system (MTS Bionix 370; MTS Systems Corp., Eden Prairie, MN). A Stryker McReynolds Distal Stem Adaptor (Stryker Ltd., Kalamazoo, MI) was threaded into the femoral stem and secured to the compression plate via a cylindrical attachment [
      • Demos H.A.
      • Briones M.S.
      • White P.H.
      • Hogan K.A.
      • Barfield W.R.
      A biomechanical comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation in normal and osteoporotic cadaveric bone.
      ,
      • Morishima T.
      • Ginsel B.L.
      • Choy G.G.
      • Wilson L.J.
      • Whitehouse S.L.
      • Crawford R.W.
      Periprosthetic fracture torque for short versus standard cemented hip stems: an experimental in vitro study.
      ]. Room temperature was controlled at 22°C. Each femur was first axially preloaded to 100 N for 30 seconds prior to loading to failure at a displacement rate of 5 mm/s in axial compression [
      • Demos H.A.
      • Briones M.S.
      • White P.H.
      • Hogan K.A.
      • Barfield W.R.
      A biomechanical comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation in normal and osteoporotic cadaveric bone.
      ]. The maximum load before failure was recorded for each specimen by the servohydraulic test system to ensure accuracy.
      After each cadaveric femur was fractured on the MTS machine with these forces and ultimate load to failure was established (Fig. 4), the femoral implant was removed. Two, 2.0-mm Vitallium Dall-Miles cables (Stryker Ltd., Kalamazoo, MI) were placed on the proximal femur with 1 placed above and 1 immediately below the lesser trochanter and tightened to 150 PSi (pounds per square inch). After cabling of the femur, the same femoral stem was inserted to the same level prior to the fracture and retested on the MTS machine with the same parameters to determine the ultimate load to failure of the fractured femur with 2 cables in place (Fig. 5). This method was repeated for the composite Sawbone models (Figure 6, Figure 7). The initial fracture pattern observed in all cadaveric specimen and composite models was a displaced fracture extending from the cut surface of the calcar to the lesser trochanter, nearly all with a spiral component. This fracture propagated from the calcar to just below the lesser trochanter in all femurs after retesting with cerclage cables.
      Figure thumbnail gr4
      Figure 4(a) Cadaveric femur loaded on an MTS machine. (b) Periprosthetic fracture caused by an MTS machine.
      Figure thumbnail gr5
      Figure 5(a) Cadaveric femur with cables after periprosthetic fracture. (b) Cabled cadaveric femur retested on an MTS machine after fracture.
      Figure thumbnail gr6
      Figure 6(a) Composite Sawbone femur loaded on an MTS machine. (b) Periprosthetic fracture created during biomechanical testing.
      Figure thumbnail gr7
      Figure 7(a) Composite Sawbone femur with cables after an initial fracture. (b) Periprosthetic fracture created during biomechanical testing after cabling.

      Statistical analysis

      Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) with the XLSTAT add-on (Addinsoft Inc., New York, NY). All data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Mean force causing ultimate load to failure for the native cadaveric and Sawbone femurs during initial instrumentation vs the same femurs refractured after cabling were compared using a two-sided, paired Student’s t-test. The analysis was performed both with data for both implants pooled together and at an implant-specific level (ie, mean ultimate load to failure before cerclage and that after were compared individually for the Stryker Accolade II and Stryker SFA implants) for both the Sawbone and cadaver models. A P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Post hoc power analyses were performed to assess adequacy of the included sample sizes based on the observed differences.

      Results

      All Sawbones developed fractures with an average length extension of 75.17 mm from the calcar. Measurements of ultimate load to failure for the initial fracture and refracture following cabling are outlined in Table 1. Pooling data for all 19 Sawbones, the mean ultimate load to failure before cabling and that after were not significantly different (2422.95 ± 1030.47 N vs 2505.14 ± 582.03 N, P = .678). Analyzing each stem type individually, the mean ultimate load to failure for Sawbones with an SFA stem (1983.91 ± 969.20 N vs 2294.07 ± 593.56 N, P = .270) and an Accolade stem (2910.56 ± 907.75 N vs 2739.67 ± 498.28 N, P = .560) were also statistically comparable (Fig. 8).
      Table 1Results of biomechanical testing on Sawbone femurs.
      Sawbone #ImplantStem sizeUltimate load to failure (N)
      PrecerclagePostcerclageDifference (post − pre)
      1SFA72060.842433.54372.70
      2SFA71801.262553.74752.48
      3SFA71630.741569.31−61.43
      4SFA72610.401866.35−744.06
      5SFA72146.122182.3536.23
      6SFA7786.651276.44489.79
      7SFA7605.362192.721587.36
      8SFA72781.692992.84211.15
      9SFA71513.742976.171462.43
      10SFA73902.242897.24−1005.00
      11Accolade43049.362915.07−134.29
      12Accolade41030.122245.721215.60
      13Accolade43333.773655.57321.81
      14Accolade42348.002079.80−268.20
      15Accolade43436.652260.26−1176.38
      16Accolade42971.432778.09−193.35
      17Accolade42282.413079.66797.25
      18Accolade43774.922625.34−1149.58
      19Accolade43968.393017.54−950.85
      Mean ± SD2422.95 ± 1030.472505.14 ± 582.0382.30 ± 851.20
      Figure thumbnail gr8
      Figure 8Implant-specific ultimate load to failure for Sawbones with (a) an SFA stem and (b) Accolade stem.
      A post hoc power analysis revealed low power for the pooled Sawbone analysis (∼3%), SFA stem subanalysis (∼18%), and Accolade stem subanalysis (∼8%). The analysis suggests that 842, 59, and 194 composite femurs would be required for the pooled data, SFA, and Accolade analyses, respectively, to achieve 80% power for these parameters.
      Measurements of ultimate load to failure for the initial fracture of the 10 cadaveric femurs and refracture following cabling are outlined in Table 2. Pooling data together for all 10 matched femur pairs, the mean ultimate load to failure was not significantly different between the initial fracture and after cabling (5828.62 ± 1808.91 N vs 7002.63 ± 1593.76 N, P = .126). Analysis of the 5 cadaveric femurs with an SFA stem (Fig. 9a) revealed significantly higher mean load to failure following cabling (5007.38 ± 1394.99 N vs 7811.17 ± 1868.86 N, P = .011). For the 5 cadaveric femurs with an Accolade stem (Fig. 9b), the mean load to failure before cabling and that after were comparable (6649.85 ± 1938.57 N vs 6194.09 ± 766.95 N, P = .538).
      Table 2Results of biomechanical testing on cadaveric femurs.
      Cadaver #Femur #StemStem sizeUltimate load to failure (N)
      PrecerclagePostcerclageMean difference (post − pre)
      11Accolade68935.406156.07−2779.33
      2SFA96291.147257.96966.82
      23Accolade56569.036073.34−495.69
      4SFA74351.746347.551995.81
      35Accolade103658.605108.021449.42
      6SFA123239.677011.503771.83
      47Accolade46521.116379.18−141.93
      8SFA84623.057359.792736.74
      59Accolade87565.137253.81−311.32
      10SFA106531.3211,079.054547.73
      Mean ± SD5828.62 ± 1808.917002.63 ± 1593.761174.01 ± 2204.08
      Figure thumbnail gr9
      Figure 9Implant-specific ultimate load to failure for cadaveric femurs with (a) an SFA stem and (b) Accolade stem.
      A post hoc power analysis showed that the analysis of the 5 matched pairs with SFA implants was adequately powered (∼90%), while the Accolade (∼8%) and pooled data (∼15%) analyses had low power. To achieve 80% power with these parameters, the pooled data and Accolade-only analyses would need 30 and 89 matched pairs, respectively.

      Discussion

      The present study demonstrated comparable biomechanical strength of femurs that sustained an initial iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture and the same femurs cabled with cerclage wires after being fractured. This result was replicated in both a composite bone and cadaveric model. Additionally, in the analysis of 5 matched cadaver femurs with SFA implants, the mean ultimate load to failure was significantly higher following cabling. The SFA stem is a double-wedge design such that the cables may confer more stability to this geometry as opposed to the Accolade II, which is a single wedge, as the SFA may have more contact with the metaphyseal-diaphyseal bone at the area of the circumferential cables [
      • Khanuja H.S.
      • Vakil J.J.
      • Goddard M.S.
      • Mont M.A.
      Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty.
      ]. Although performed in vitro, these data suggest biomechanical strength of the femur with cables after iatrogenic fracture during THA is not significantly lower, which has important implications for operative management strategy of these injuries.
      Despite abundant innovations in implant design and surgical technique, iatrogenic periprosthetic fractures remain a key issue during primary THA affecting between 1.5% and 27.8% of cases [
      • Wagner M.
      • Knorr-Held F.
      • Hohmann D.
      Measuring stability of wire cerclage in femoral fractures when performing total hip replacement. In vitro study on a standardized bone model.
      ,
      • Mont M.A.
      • Maar D.C.
      • Krackow K.A.
      • Hungerford D.S.
      Hoop-stress fractures of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases.
      ,
      • Berend K.R.
      • Lombardi A.V.
      Intraoperative femur fracture is associated with stem and instrument design in primary total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Berend K.R.
      • Lombardi A.V.
      • Mallory T.H.
      • Chonko D.J.
      • Dodds K.L.
      • Adams J.B.
      Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years.
      ,
      • Herzwurm P.J.
      • Walsh J.
      • Pettine K.A.
      • Ebert F.R.
      Prophylactic cerclage: a method of preventing femur fracture in uncemented total hip arthroplasty.
      ]. It must also be acknowledged that, because many surgeons do not bill for repair of an iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture during primary THA, the true incidence may be higher [
      General correct coding policies for national correct coding initiative policy manual for Medicare services.
      ]. Several risk factors have been identified including minimally invasive surgical techniques, female sex, metabolic bone diseases, technical issues during surgery, and the use of press-fit cementless stems [
      • Berend K.R.
      • Lombardi A.V.
      Intraoperative femur fracture is associated with stem and instrument design in primary total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Nowak M.
      • Kusz D.
      • Wojciechowski P.
      • Wilk R.
      Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during the total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Davidson D.
      • Pike J.
      • Garbuz D.
      • Duncan C.P.
      • Masri B.A.
      Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation and management.
      ]. Abdel et al. reported intraoperative periprosthetic fractures were 14 times more common with the use of uncemented stems vs a cemented prosthesis [
      • Abdel M.P.
      • Watts C.D.
      • Houdek M.T.
      • Lewallen D.G.
      • Berry D.J.
      Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience.
      ]. This elevated risk is likely attributed to the enhanced importance of maintaining initial mechanical stability during preparation of the femur in the absence of cement. During insertion of the press-fit femoral implant, calcar hoop stresses increase by 25%-400%, which can cause iatrogenic fracture [
      • Walker P.S.
      • Schneeweis D.
      • Murphy S.
      • Nelson P.
      Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses.
      ].
      With small, nondisplaced intraoperative calcar fractures, joint surgeons often remove the implant, cable the proximal femur, and replace with the same stem [
      • Pike J.
      • Davidson D.
      • Garbuz D.
      • Duncan C.P.
      • O'Brien P.J.
      • Masri B.A.
      Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Park C.W.
      • Lim S.J.
      • Ye D.H.
      • Park Y.S.
      Outcomes of cerclage cabling for intraoperative calcar cracks in cementless total hip arthroplasty using broach-only, tapered wedge stems.
      ]. However, this study presents the first mechanical data suggesting there is no decrease in initial mechanical strength of the femur after iatrogenic periprosthetic fractures during femoral preparation. When fractures propagate further into the proximal femur and below the calcar, surgeons often use distally fixed implants to bypass the stress on the fractured area [
      • Fink B.
      • Oremek D.
      Hip revision arthroplasty for failed osteosynthesis in periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures using a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem.
      ,
      • Magill P.
      • Blaney J.
      • Hill J.C.
      • Bonnin M.P.
      • Beverland D.E.
      Impact of a learning curve on the survivorship of 4802 cementless total hip arthroplasties.
      ]. There are, however, disadvantages to using distally fixed stems in primary cases including cost of the implant and the potential for thigh pain that can result from canal-filling stems [
      • Khanuja H.S.
      • Vakil J.J.
      • Goddard M.S.
      • Mont M.A.
      Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Moreland J.R.
      • Bernstein M.L.
      Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems.
      ]. There is also stress shielding that can be seen for a long term in patients receiving long distally fixed stems, which occurs less commonly with tapered proximal fit designs [
      • Khanuja H.S.
      • Vakil J.J.
      • Goddard M.S.
      • Mont M.A.
      Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Huiskes R.
      • Weinans H.
      • Dalstra M.
      Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty.
      ,
      • Engh C.A.
      • Young A.M.
      • Hopper R.H.
      Clinical consequences of stress shielding after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty.
      ]. The fractures in this study were created with a force large enough to represent a displaced fracture averaging over 75 mm in length, and cabling was still able to provide the same time zero strength, which may aid surgeons in making the decision to use distally fixed vs proximally tapered stems when treating intraoperative insertional fractures.
      It has been shown that it is difficult for patients older than 75 years to maintain a non-weight-bearing status, and most patients are unable to do so after a hip fracture [
      • Kammerlander C.
      • Pfeufer D.
      • Lisitano L.A.
      • Mehaffey S.
      • Böcker W.
      • Neuerburg C.
      Inability of older adult patients with hip fracture to maintain postoperative weight-bearing restrictions.
      ,
      • Pfeufer D.
      • Zeller A.
      • Mehaffey S.
      • Böcker W.
      • Kammerlander C.
      • Neuerburg C.
      Weight-bearing restrictions reduce postoperative mobility in elderly hip fracture patients.
      ]. There is also an increased morbidity and adverse events associated with non-weight-bearing in patients after hip fractures [
      • Ottesen T.D.
      • McLynn R.P.
      • Galivanche A.R.
      • et al.
      Increased complications in geriatric patients with a fracture of the hip whose postoperative weight-bearing is restricted: an analysis of 4918 patients.
      ,
      • Morri M.
      • Ambrosi E.
      • Chiari P.
      • et al.
      One-year mortality after hip fracture surgery and prognostic factors: a prospective cohort study.
      ]. These results suggest that complete non-weight-bearing may not be necessary with insertional fractures after cabling with this method. There is also fatigue of the implants that has to be considered such that early weight-bearing with repetitive loading could result in cable loosening; however, these data may be useful when weighing the risks and benefits of strict non-weight-bearing protocols in certain patients.
      There are several limitations to this study. Implant survivorship and osteointegration could not be determined as all specimens and composite models were tested in vitro. However, implant testing with respect to ultimate load to failure was done intentionally on in vitro specimens to standardize the procedure and not produce iatrogenic fractures in living individuals. Additionally, a standardized fracture morphology was not artificially created with drill bits and/or osteotomes, but rather the fracture was created using a real implant to best simulate an iatrogenic fracture due to loading. This variation could have contributed to an inconsistency in fracture patterns; however, the intention was to produce a clinically relevant fracture. A third limitation is that although the Sawbone mechanical models are validated, they may not behave in an exact manner as human bone. Furthermore, while cadaveric femurs were classified using the Dorr classification, standardized measures such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or quantitative CT were not performed, and variation in bone quality may have influenced the results. The data collected were also an ultimate force to failure and, as such, did not take into account repetitive loading that would be seen with ambulation over a period of months until bone healing is complete. Another limitation is that, aside from the sub-analysis of cadaveric femurs with an SFA stem, post hoc analyses suggested all analyses were underpowered to detect the observed mean differences in ultimate load to failure before and after cerclage. However, as illustrated by the remarkable sample sizes required to achieve statistical significance with the mean differences found in the present study, it seems more likely that our results reflect comparable strength of the femur before and after cerclage rather than inadequate sample sizes. Future analyses with larger samples should seek to test this hypothesis. Additionally, the stems of all femurs in both composite models and cadaveric specimen were loaded with the application of force at a constant rate. This simulation may not be representative of in vivo conditions, in which intermittent impaction is performed with a mallet; however, this methodology was chosen to best represent weight-bearing in the immediate postoperative time period. Lastly, only 2 models of press-fit stems were tested during this study to represent the 2 most common geometries currently in use. There is a chance that different proximally coated press-fit stems could have different strength profiles.

      Conclusions

      The present study demonstrated comparable biomechanical strength between femurs that sustained an iatrogenic periprosthetic fracture and the same femurs cabled with cerclage wires after being fractured. These data may assist in operative decision-making for treating iatrogenic fractures during THA.

      Acknowledgments

      The authors would like to thank and acknowledge Rita A. Richardson for her technical support.

      Conflicts of interest

      The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
      For full disclosure statements refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2022.02.007.

      Appendix A. Supplementary data

      References

        • Caton J.
        • Prudhon J.L.
        Over 25 years survival after Charnley's total hip arthroplasty.
        Int Orthop. 2011; 35: 185
        • Berry D.J.
        • Harmsen W.S.
        • Cabanela M.E.
        • Morrey B.F.
        Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 171
        • Learmonth I.D.
        • Young C.
        • Rorabeck C.
        The operation of the century: total hip replacement.
        Lancet. 2007; 370: 1508
        • Białkowska M.
        • Stołtny T.
        • Pasek J.
        • et al.
        Quality of life of men after cementless hip replacement - a pilot study.
        Orthop Traumatol Rehabil. 2020; 22: 161
        • Sloan M.
        • Premkumar A.
        • Sheth N.P.
        Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100: 1455
        • Bordoni V.
        • Marelli N.
        • Previtali D.
        • Gaffurini P.
        • Filardo G.
        • Candrian C.
        Outpatient total hip arthroplasty does not increase complications and readmissions: a meta-analysis.
        Hip Int. 2020; (Epub ahead of print. 1120700020948797)https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020948797
        • Arshi A.
        • Leong N.L.
        • Wang C.
        • Buser Z.
        • Wang J.C.
        • SooHoo N.F.
        Outpatient total hip arthroplasty in the United States: a population-based comparative analysis of complication rates.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019; 27: 61
        • Callaghan J.J.
        • Albright J.C.
        • Goetz D.D.
        • Olejniczak J.P.
        • Johnston R.C.
        Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement. Minimum twenty-five-year follow-up.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 487
        • Okutani Y.
        • Goto K.
        • Kuroda Y.
        • et al.
        Long-term outcome of cemented total hip arthroplasty with the Charnley-type femoral stem made of titanium alloy.
        J Orthop Sci. 2019; 24: 1047
        • Lehil M.S.
        • Bozic K.J.
        Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States.
        J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29: 1915
        • Flick T.R.
        • Ross B.J.
        • Sherman W.F.
        Instability after total hip arthroplasty and the role of advanced and robotic technology.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 2021; 52: 191
        • Cherian J.J.
        • Jauregui J.J.
        • Banerjee S.
        • Pierce T.
        • Mont M.A.
        What host factors affect aseptic loosening after THA and TKA?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 2700
        • Lindeque B.
        • Hartman Z.
        • Noshchenko A.
        • Cruse M.
        Infection after primary total hip arthroplasty.
        Orthopedics. 2014; 37: 257
        • Abdel M.P.
        • Watts C.D.
        • Houdek M.T.
        • Lewallen D.G.
        • Berry D.J.
        Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience.
        Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B: 461
        • Galante J.
        • Rostoker W.
        • Lueck R.
        • Ray R.D.
        Sintered fiber metal composites as a basis for attachment of implants to bone.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1971; 53: 101
        • Wagner M.
        • Knorr-Held F.
        • Hohmann D.
        Measuring stability of wire cerclage in femoral fractures when performing total hip replacement. In vitro study on a standardized bone model.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996; 115: 33
        • Mont M.A.
        • Maar D.C.
        • Krackow K.A.
        • Hungerford D.S.
        Hoop-stress fractures of the proximal femur during hip arthroplasty. Management and results in 19 cases.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74: 257
        • Berend K.R.
        • Lombardi A.V.
        Intraoperative femur fracture is associated with stem and instrument design in primary total hip arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468: 2377
        • Berend K.R.
        • Lombardi A.V.
        • Mallory T.H.
        • Chonko D.J.
        • Dodds K.L.
        • Adams J.B.
        Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years.
        J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19: 17
        • Herzwurm P.J.
        • Walsh J.
        • Pettine K.A.
        • Ebert F.R.
        Prophylactic cerclage: a method of preventing femur fracture in uncemented total hip arthroplasty.
        Orthopedics. 1992; 15: 143
        • Nowak M.
        • Kusz D.
        • Wojciechowski P.
        • Wilk R.
        Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during the total hip arthroplasty.
        Pol Orthop Traumatol. 2012; 77: 59
        • Fishkin Z.
        • Han S.M.
        • Ziv I.
        Cerclage wiring technique after proximal femoral fracture in total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 1999; 14: 98
        • Reddy A.V.G.
        • Eachempati K.K.
        • Mugalur A.
        • Suchinder A.
        • Rao V.B.N.P.
        • Kamurukuru N.
        Undisplaced intraoperative fracture presenting as early dislocation with tapered wedge stems in total hip arthroplasty - case series and Review of literature.
        J Orthop Case Rep. 2017; 7: 31
        • Miettinen S.S.
        • Mäkinen T.J.
        • Kostensalo I.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for intraoperative calcar fracture in cementless total hip arthroplasty.
        Acta Orthop. 2016; 87: 113
        • Ricci W.M.
        Periprosthetic femur fractures.
        J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29: 130
        • Lamb J.N.
        • Baetz J.
        • Messer-Hannemann P.
        • et al.
        A calcar collar is protective against early periprosthetic femoral fracture around cementless femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty: a registry study with biomechanical validation.
        Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B: 779
        • Pike J.
        • Davidson D.
        • Garbuz D.
        • Duncan C.P.
        • O'Brien P.J.
        • Masri B.A.
        Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17: 677
        • Ehlinger M.
        • Adam P.
        • Di Marco A.
        • Arlettaz Y.
        • Moor B.K.
        • Bonnomet F.
        Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by locked plating: feasibility assessment of the mini-invasive surgical option. A prospective series of 36 fractures.
        Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011; 97: 622
        • Fink B.
        • Oremek D.
        Hip revision arthroplasty for failed osteosynthesis in periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures using a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem.
        Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 11
        • Pavone V.
        • de Cristo C.
        • Di Stefano A.
        • Costarella L.
        • Testa G.
        • Sessa G.
        Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty: an algorithm of treatment.
        Injury. 2019; 50: S45
        • Ferbert T.
        • Jaber A.
        • Gress N.
        • Schmidmaier G.
        • Gotterbarm T.
        • Merle C.
        Impact of intraoperative femoral fractures in primary hip arthroplasty: a comparative study with a mid-term follow-up.
        Hip Int. 2020; 30: 544
        • Ponzio D.Y.
        • Shahi A.
        • Park A.G.
        • Purtill J.J.
        Intraoperative proximal femoral fracture in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 1418
        • Park C.W.
        • Lim S.J.
        • Ye D.H.
        • Park Y.S.
        Outcomes of cerclage cabling for intraoperative calcar cracks in cementless total hip arthroplasty using broach-only, tapered wedge stems.
        J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35: 3002
        • Frisch N.B.
        • Charters M.A.
        • Sikora-Klak J.
        • Banglmaier R.F.
        • Oravec D.J.
        • Silverton C.D.
        Intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture: a biomechanical analysis of cerclage fixation.
        J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 1449
        • Lenz M.
        • Perren S.M.
        • Richards R.G.
        • et al.
        Biomechanical performance of different cable and wire cerclage configurations.
        Int Orthop. 2013; 37: 125
        • Dennis M.G.
        • Simon J.A.
        • Kummer F.J.
        • Koval K.J.
        • DiCesare P.E.
        Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques.
        J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15: 523
        • Talbot M.
        • Zdero R.
        • Schemitsch E.H.
        Cyclic loading of periprosthetic fracture fixation constructs.
        J Trauma. 2008; 64: 1308
        • Waligora A.C.
        • Owen J.R.
        • Wayne J.S.
        • Hess S.R.
        • Golladay G.J.
        • Jiranek W.A.
        The effect of prophylactic cerclage wires in primary total hip arthroplasty: a biomechanical study.
        J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32: 2023
        • Khanuja H.S.
        • Vakil J.J.
        • Goddard M.S.
        • Mont M.A.
        Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 500
        • Wähnert D.
        • Hoffmeier K.L.
        • Klos K.
        • et al.
        Biomechanical characterization of an osteoporotic artificial bone model for the distal femur.
        J Biomater Appl. 2012; 26: 565
        • Demos H.A.
        • Briones M.S.
        • White P.H.
        • Hogan K.A.
        • Barfield W.R.
        A biomechanical comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation in normal and osteoporotic cadaveric bone.
        J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27: 783
        • Morishima T.
        • Ginsel B.L.
        • Choy G.G.
        • Wilson L.J.
        • Whitehouse S.L.
        • Crawford R.W.
        Periprosthetic fracture torque for short versus standard cemented hip stems: an experimental in vitro study.
        J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29: 1067
      1. General correct coding policies for national correct coding initiative policy manual for Medicare services.
        ([accessed 29.08.21])
        • Davidson D.
        • Pike J.
        • Garbuz D.
        • Duncan C.P.
        • Masri B.A.
        Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation and management.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 2000
        • Walker P.S.
        • Schneeweis D.
        • Murphy S.
        • Nelson P.
        Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses.
        J Biomech. 1987; 20: 693
        • Magill P.
        • Blaney J.
        • Hill J.C.
        • Bonnin M.P.
        • Beverland D.E.
        Impact of a learning curve on the survivorship of 4802 cementless total hip arthroplasties.
        Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B: 1589
        • Moreland J.R.
        • Bernstein M.L.
        Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; 319: 141
        • Huiskes R.
        • Weinans H.
        • Dalstra M.
        Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty.
        Orthopedics. 1989; 12: 1255
        • Engh C.A.
        • Young A.M.
        • Hopper R.H.
        Clinical consequences of stress shielding after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 417: 157
        • Kammerlander C.
        • Pfeufer D.
        • Lisitano L.A.
        • Mehaffey S.
        • Böcker W.
        • Neuerburg C.
        Inability of older adult patients with hip fracture to maintain postoperative weight-bearing restrictions.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100: 936
        • Pfeufer D.
        • Zeller A.
        • Mehaffey S.
        • Böcker W.
        • Kammerlander C.
        • Neuerburg C.
        Weight-bearing restrictions reduce postoperative mobility in elderly hip fracture patients.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019; 139: 1253
        • Ottesen T.D.
        • McLynn R.P.
        • Galivanche A.R.
        • et al.
        Increased complications in geriatric patients with a fracture of the hip whose postoperative weight-bearing is restricted: an analysis of 4918 patients.
        Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B: 1377
        • Morri M.
        • Ambrosi E.
        • Chiari P.
        • et al.
        One-year mortality after hip fracture surgery and prognostic factors: a prospective cohort study.
        Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 18718