Periprosthetic Fracture, ABOS Oral Boards Preparation
What examiners expect and how to prepare
Clinical Scenario
This is a 72-year-old woman who fell from standing at home. She had a left cemented total hip arthroplasty eight years ago for osteoarthritis, and prior to this fall she was ambulatory without assistive devices with an excellent result, no pain, no limp. She presented with acute left thigh pain and inability to bear weight. On exam, the left thigh was swollen and tender in the mid-diaphyseal region. There was no deformity at the hip. Her prior posterolateral incision was well-healed with no signs of infection. Distal neurovascular exam was intact.
AP and lateral radiographs showed a spiral fracture of the femoral shaft at the tip of the cemented femoral stem. I compared these to her post-operative films from six years ago, the stem had no subsidence and there were no lucent lines around the cement mantle, suggesting the stem was well-fixed. The fracture extended approximately 2 centimeters distal to the stem tip. The acetabular component was well-positioned without loosening.
This is a Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fracture, a fracture around a well-fixed stem.
I performed ORIF through a lateral approach with a locking plate, cerclage cables proximally, and cortical strut allograft augmentation. Intraoperatively, I confirmed the stem was solidly fixed.
Post-operatively, she was made toe-touch weight-bearing for twelve weeks to protect the fixation. At six weeks, she was comfortable and X-rays showed maintained alignment with early callus. At three months, there was progressive healing and she advanced to full weight-bearing. At six months, the fracture was healed, the stem remained well-fixed, and she was back to ambulating without assistive devices.
She was satisfied with her recovery and the implant was preserved. If I were to treat this case again, I would consider using a longer plate with more distal fixation points. The construct worked, but the distal working length was on the shorter end of what I would have liked, and a longer plate would have provided a more generous stress riser transition. I monitored for signs of stem loosening and infection throughout the follow-up period, and both the fracture fixation and the arthroplasty remained stable.
What Examiners Look For
- Data gathering: Pre-injury function, the primary implant details (cemented vs. cementless, approach, vintage), and prior radiographs are critical, present them before the fracture.
- Diagnosis: Vancouver classification, you must determine stem stability, fracture location, and bone quality. Each combination dictates a different treatment.
- Treatment plan: Why did you fix around the stem rather than revise? What findings would have made you revise the femoral component?
- Technical skill: Describe your fixation construct, cable plate, locking plate, strut grafts, and how each element contributes to stability.
- Indications: When is revision arthroplasty indicated in periprosthetic fractures? What about a Vancouver B2 versus B1?
- Complications: What if the fracture goes on to nonunion? What if the stem loosens during follow-up? How do you distinguish from infection?
- Applied knowledge: How does cemented versus cementless primary fixation affect your treatment algorithm for periprosthetic fracture?
Common Pitfalls
- Failing to classify the fracture using the Vancouver system, this is the framework examiners expect and every treatment decision flows from it.
- Not assessing stem stability, this is the single most important factor in deciding between fixation and revision.
- Treating all periprosthetic fractures the same way, B1 (stable stem) and B2 (loose stem) require fundamentally different treatments.
- Forgetting to rule out infection as a cause of implant loosening, always send intraoperative cultures.
- Not knowing your strut graft or cable plating techniques, this is a hands-on technical question examiners love.
Key Classifications
Related Scenarios
Free, takes 3 minutes