Free reference — 99+ guides, IR playbooks, wRVU tracking, and more in RadCall Pro. Start 14-day free trial
Fractures Updated 2026-04

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures — Stability Assessment and Vancouver Classification

Periprosthetic femoral fracture reporting: fracture location, prosthesis stability assessment (cemented vs uncemented), bone stock quality, subsidence measurement, and structured CT reporting checklist per Marshall 2017.

Quick summary

Structured reporting of periprosthetic femoral fractures: fracture location, prosthesis stability, and bone stock quality — the three criteria that drive orthopedic management.

Three Key Reporting Criteria

Orthopedic management depends on all three:

  1. Fracture location — trochanteric, along femoral stem, or well distal to stem
  2. Prosthesis stability — stable vs. loose (present in ~70% of periprosthetic fractures)
  3. Bone stock quality — good vs. poor (determines revision hardware options)

Medial Buttress

The medial cortex along the proximal femoral stem is a key landmark. Fractures that disrupt the medial buttress may compromise femoral stem stability regardless of where the fracture line originates — note any medial cortex involvement explicitly.

Prosthesis Stability Assessment

Finding Press-Fit (Uncemented) Cemented
Fixation surface disruption (traumatic loosening) Fracture extending along textured proximal ingrowth surface — shears off osseointegration Fracture paralleling or disrupting cement mantle
Periprosthetic lucency (preexisting loosening) Lucency >2 mm at bone-prosthesis interface (especially divergent/widening); radiolucency around proximal textured surface — abnormal; lucency around distal smooth surface — may be normal (<2 mm) Continuous radiolucency around entire cement mantle — abnormal; lucency >2 mm at bone-cement interface; any lucency not present on initial postop XR
Progressive lucency Any progression after 2 years postop Any progression after 2 years postop
Subsidence / migration (>5 mm or >2 yrs postop = abnormal) Caudal settling of stem relative to femur. Measure: greater trochanter → lateral shoulder of prosthesis; OR lesser trochanter (most medial point) → medial shoulder of prosthesis. Also assess tilting (varus/valgus) and rotation Same measurement approach
Other signs Bony pedestal at prosthesis tip; bead shedding; endosteal scalloping; osteolysis Cement fracture; prosthesis fracture; eccentric femoral head position (liner wear → particle disease)
Prosthesis fracture Diagnostic of instability regardless of other findings Diagnostic of instability regardless of other findings

Normal Findings — Do Not Overcall Loosening

Press-fit (uncemented): thin radiolucent line <2 mm around distal (smooth) stem; trabecular ingrowth / spot welds at textured surface; stress shielding (proximal bone resorption + distal cortical hypertrophy); subtle pedestal sclerosis in first 2 years postop.

Cemented: small air bubbles in cement; radiolucent line <2 mm at bone-cement interface (stable, nonprogressive); thin cement mantle surrounding stem.

Stress Riser

When a plate does not overlap the distal stem tip, the unprotected bone segment between two implants concentrates stress, increasing interprosthetic fracture risk. Cortical plates should extend distally past the stem tip.

Reporting Checklist

Reference

Marshall RA et al. Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in the Emergency Department: What the Orthopedic Surgeon Wants to Know. RadioGraphics. 2017;37(4).


More in RadCall 99+ guides, IR procedure playbooks, systematic search patterns, case logging, and wRVU tracking — all in one place.
Start free trial ›