Stabilization of Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures With Cerclage Wiring: A Retrospective Chart Review

Ajith Malige; Matthew Beck; Frederick Mun; Maddie Goss; Henry Boateng; Chinenye Nwachuku

doi:10.7759/cureus.25063

Stabilization of Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures With Cerclage Wiring: A Retrospective Chart Review

Cureus. 2022 May 17;14(5):e25063. doi: 10.7759/cureus.25063. eCollection 2022 May.

Authors

Ajith Malige¹, Matthew Beck², Frederick Mun³, Maddie Goss³, Henry Boateng³, Chinenye Nwachuku¹

Affiliations

¹ Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, USA.
² Orthopaedic Surgery, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
³ Orthopaedic Surgery, Penn State University College of Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, USA.

Abstract

Background: While biomechanical and clinical studies detailing the equivalence and, sometimes, the superiority of cerclage wiring fixation compared to plate fixation in select fractures (Vancouver B1 and C) exist, no studies exist detailing outcomes after cerclage wiring fixation in all Vancouver B fracture types. This study explores whether there is a difference in clinical outcomes between Vancouver B fractures fixed with cerclage wiring and those without.

Methods: This retrospective multicenter study reviewed 295 patients from 2007 to 2018 with periprosthetic femur fractures. Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures stabilized utilizing cerclage wiring were identified and compared against fractures stabilized without cerclage wiring, with 33% being B1, 48.4% B2, and 18.6% B3 fractures. Demographics, injury details, fracture classification, surgical details, fracture union, and postoperative complications were recorded for each patient.

Results: A majority of our patients were females (65.9%) and were older than 71 years of age (65.6%) without diabetes (63.3%) or smoking history (92.2%). Sixty-nine patients progressed to fracture union (76.7%), two (2.2%) to delayed union, and 19 (21.1%) to nonunion. There was no difference in the union rate (p = 0.98) or time to union (p = 0.91) between the fixation methods. Finally, there was no difference in the infection rate (p = 0.81), re-fracture rate (p = 0.87), or re-operation rate (p = 0.75) between the fixation methods.

Conclusion: Periprosthetic femur fractures are common injuries, most commonly occurring after low-energy mechanisms in the elderly female population. While the Vancouver fracture pattern helps to guide the surgical construct used for fixation, the use of cerclage wires does not impact bony union in these injuries. Interestingly, increasing age and female gender were associated with increased union rates. Surgeons should individually consider each patient's demographic as well as fracture type when deciding which construct will achieve stable fixation that allows for fracture healing.

Keywords: arthroplasty; cerclage; femur; fracture; periprosthetic.