Literature DB >> 21063218

Interprosthetic femoral fractures.

Christiaan N Mamczak1, Michael J Gardner, Brett Bolhofner, Joseph Borrelli, Philipp N Streubel, William M Ricci.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Interprosthetic femoral fractures, ones occurring between ipsilateral total hip and total knee arthroplasties, are an increasingly common and challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to report specific fracture locations and treatment outcomes associated with a protocol of femoral plate fixation that spanned the interprosthetic zone applied with modern soft tissue preserving reduction techniques without adjuvant bone grafts.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: One Level I and one Level II trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive cohort of 25 patients with 26 interprosthetic femur fractures surgically treated by one of four orthopaedic traumatologists were retrospectively reviewed. There were nine fractures of the femoral shaft (Orthopaedic Trauma Association [OTA] 32) about hip arthroplasty prostheses and 17 supracondylar fractures (OTA 33) about total knee prostheses. Five patients with six fractures were excluded as a result of lack of follow up (n = 4) or deviation from the treatment protocol (n = 2). The remaining 20 fractures were all low-energy closed injuries in elderly patients (average age 80 years; range, 56-98 years; 14 females and six males). INTERVENTION: A common surgical treatment protocol included plate fixation that spanned the entire interprosthetic zone (overlapping the stem proximally and knee component distally) and the use of biologic tissue-preserving plating techniques without use of supplemental bone grafts of any kind. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fracture healing, time to full weightbearing, malunion, nonunion, and the presence of any hardware failure.
RESULTS: Supracondylar interprosthetic fracture patterns (OTA 33A) were two times more common than proximal diaphyseal fractures (OTA 32) (Vancouver B), 65% versus 35%. All 20 fractures healed after the index procedure. The average time to weightbearing as tolerated was 13 weeks (range, 6-22 weeks). There were three malunions (one 10° valgus, one 9° extension, and one 10° flexion), two cases of painful implants (one required removal), and one loose long-stem revision hip prosthesis (required total femur replacement). All other implants remained well-fixed. All complications occurred in patients with supracondylar fracture patterns. There were no additional associated peri-implant fractures.
CONCLUSIONS: Interprosthetic femoral fractures tend to occur more frequently in the supracondylar region about total knee arthroplasty components than in the diaphysis about hip stems. Modern biologic plating techniques that span the entire interprosthetic zone to eliminate additional stress risers show reliable union rates without the use of adjuvant bone graft while maintaining limb alignment and implant survivorship.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21063218     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181d73508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  10 in total

Review 1.  [Ipsilateral THA after stemmed TKA: Risk of interprosthetic fracture?].

Authors:  J Dexel; A Hartmann; J Pyrc; K-P Günther; J Lützner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  A systematic review of the surgical outcomes of interprosthetic femur fractures.

Authors:  Brian M Rao; Phillip Stokey; Mina Tanios; Jiayong Liu; Nabil A Ebraheim
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-07-31

3.  Interprosthetic and interimplant femoral fractures: is bone strut allograft augmentation with ORIF a validity alternative solution in elderly?

Authors:  Giuseppe Pica; Francesco Liuzza; Mario Ronga; Luigi Meccariello; Domenico De Mauro; Amarildo Smakaj; Enio De Cruto; Giuseppe Rollo
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2022-10-13

4.  Incidence of and risk factors for femoral fractures in the gap between hip and knee implants.

Authors:  José Antonio Valle Cruz; Antonio Luis Urda; Laura Serrano; Francisco Alberto Rodriguez-Gonzalez; Julio Otero; Enrique Moro; Luis López-Durán
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Interprosthetic femoral fractures treated with locking plate.

Authors:  Nabil Ebraheim; Trevor Carroll; Muhammad Z Moral; Justin Lea; Adam Hirschfeld; Jiayong Liu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-12       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Wolfgang Lehmann; Martin Rupprecht; Jacob Nuechtern; Daniel Melzner; Kai Sellenschloh; Jan Kolb; Florian Fensky; Michael Hoffmann; Klaus Püschel; Michael Morlock; Johannes M Rueger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures Surgical Treatment in Geriatric Patients.

Authors:  Marios Loucas; Rafael Loucas; Nico Safa Akhavan; Patrick Fries; Michael Dietrich
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2021-05-04

8.  Orthogonal femoral plating: a biomechanical study with implications for interprosthetic fractures.

Authors:  D A Auston; F W Werner; R B Simpson
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.853

Review 9.  Interprosthetic femoral fractures: management challenges.

Authors:  Joshua C Rozell; Dimitri E Delagrammaticas; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Orthop Res Rev       Date:  2019-09-16

10.  Treatment of interprosthetic femoral fractures with an interposition prosthesis: a technical note.

Authors:  Mustafa Citak; Till Orla Klatte; Daniel Kendoff; Carl Haasper; Thorsten Gehrke; Matthias Gebauer
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 3.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.