PURPOSE: Due to increasing life expectancy we see a rising number of joint replacements. Along with the proximal prosthesis in the femur, more and more people have a second implant on the distal ipsilateral side. This might be a retrograde nail or a locking plate to treat distal femur fractures or a constrained knee prosthesis in the case of severe arthrosis. All these constructs can lead to fractures between the implants. The goal of this study was to evaluate the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur. METHODS: Thirty human cadaveric femurs were divided into five groups: (1) femurs with a prosthesis on the proximal side only, (2) hip prosthesis on the proximal end and a distal femur nail, (3) femurs with both a hip prosthesis and a constrained knee prosthesis, (4) femurs with a hip prosthesis on the proximal side and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 230 mm in length, with ten holes in the shaft, and (5) femurs with a proximal hip prosthesis and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 342 mm in length, with 16 holes in the shaft. RESULTS: Femurs with a hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis showed significantly higher required fracture force compared to femurs with a hip prosthesis and a distal retrograde nail. Femurs with a distal locking plate of either length showed a higher required fracture force than those with the retrograde nail. CONCLUSIONS: The highest risk for a fracture in the femur with an existing hip prosthesis comes with a retrograde nail. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force. The implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened on the ipsilateral side does not increase the risk for a fracture.
PURPOSE: Due to increasing life expectancy we see a rising number of joint replacements. Along with the proximal prosthesis in the femur, more and more people have a second implant on the distal ipsilateral side. This might be a retrograde nail or a locking plate to treat distal femur fractures or a constrained knee prosthesis in the case of severe arthrosis. All these constructs can lead to fractures between the implants. The goal of this study was to evaluate the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur. METHODS: Thirty human cadaveric femurs were divided into five groups: (1) femurs with a prosthesis on the proximal side only, (2) hip prosthesis on the proximal end and a distal femur nail, (3) femurs with both a hip prosthesis and a constrained knee prosthesis, (4) femurs with a hip prosthesis on the proximal side and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 230 mm in length, with ten holes in the shaft, and (5) femurs with a proximal hip prosthesis and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 342 mm in length, with 16 holes in the shaft. RESULTS: Femurs with a hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis showed significantly higher required fracture force compared to femurs with a hip prosthesis and a distal retrograde nail. Femurs with a distal locking plate of either length showed a higher required fracture force than those with the retrograde nail. CONCLUSIONS: The highest risk for a fracture in the femur with an existing hip prosthesis comes with a retrograde nail. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force. The implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened on the ipsilateral side does not increase the risk for a fracture.
Authors: Mark Lenz; Markus Windolf; Thomas Mückley; Gunther O Hofmann; Michael Wagner; Robert G Richards; Karsten Schwieger; Boyko Gueorguiev Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2012-05-27 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Martin Rupprecht; Kai Sellenschloh; Lars Grossterlinden; Klaus Püschel; Michael Morlock; Michael Amling; Johannes M Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-04
Authors: Martin Rupprecht; Lars Grossterlinden; Andreas H Ruecker; Alexander Novo de Oliveira; Kay Sellenschloh; Jakob Nüchtern; Klaus Püschel; Michael Morlock; Johannes Maria Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-09
Authors: Christiaan N Mamczak; Michael J Gardner; Brett Bolhofner; Joseph Borrelli; Philipp N Streubel; William M Ricci Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: M Rupprecht; L Grossterlinden; F Barvencik; M Gebauer; D Briem; J M Rueger; W Lehmann Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Matthieu Ehlinger; Benjamin Scheibling; Michel Rahme; David Brinkert; Benoit Schenck; Antonio Di Marco; Philippe Adam; François Bonnomet Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Tatu J Mäkinen; Herman S Dhotar; Simcha G Fichman; Matthew J Gunton; Mitchell Woodside; Oleg Safir; David Backstein; Thomas L Willett; Paul R T Kuzyk Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Dirk Wähnert; Richard Schröder; Martin Schulze; Peter Westerhoff; Michael Raschke; Richard Stange Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Lukas Weiser; Michal A Korecki; Kay Sellenschloh; Florian Fensky; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Johannes M Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-04-26 Impact factor: 3.075
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