Literature DB >> 25011409

Interprosthetic femoral fractures treated with locking plate.

Nabil Ebraheim1, Trevor Carroll, Muhammad Z Moral, Justin Lea, Adam Hirschfeld, Jiayong Liu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Interprosthetic fractures are challenging to manage. Although treatment of femoral fractures around a single implant has been described, there is little literature for treatment of interprosthetic femoral fractures. This study analyses the management and outcomes of 15 patients with interprosthetic femoral fractures treated with locking plates.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 17 patients with interprosthetic femur fracture treated with locking plates from 2002 to 2013. Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected. Preoperatively, patients were classified with the Vancouver or Su classification system. Intraoperative use of bone graft and/or cerclage cables was also examined. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated for union, time to full weight bearing, return to preinjury level of activity, and pain assessed with visual analog scale (VAS).
RESULTS: There were 15 patients with interprosthetic fractures meeting criteria for this study. Average patient age was 80.53 (range, 61-92) years. Bone grafting was used in 23.5% (four of 17) and cerclage cables in 29.4% (five of 17). Patients achieved complete union and return to full weight bearing an average of 4.02 (range, two to six) months later. Average VAS pain score was 1.00 (range, zero to six). All patients returned to their preoperative ambulatory status.
CONCLUSION: Locking plates could achieve satisfactory results for interprosthetic fractures. Considering an individual's fracture type, bone quality and protheses to determine the appropriate plate length and optional use of cerclage and/or bone graft was essential. In this limited sample size, interprosthetic fractures occurred at similar rates at the supracondylar region and diaphysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25011409     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2414-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  23 in total

Review 1.  Interprosthetic femoral fractures-A challenge of treatment. A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  G Solarino; G Vicenti; L Moretti; A Abate; A Spinarelli; B Moretti
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 2.  Periprosthetic fractures of the femur complicating total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  C H Rorabeck; J W Taylor
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  Interprosthetic femoral fractures.

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

4.  Interprosthetic fractures of the femur: treatment with a single-locked plate.

Authors:  Alexander P Sah; Amanda Marshall; Walter V Virkus; Daniel M Estok; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Supracondylar fracture of the femur after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K D Merkel; E W Johnson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Management of periprosthetic femur fractures with a first generation locking plate.

Authors:  Eric Fulkerson; Nirmal Tejwani; Steven Stuchin; Kenneth Egol
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 7.  Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee replacements.

Authors:  Edward T Su; Hargovind DeWal; Paul E Di Cesare
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Retrograde intramedullary nailing of supracondylar femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty. A preliminary report of four cases.

Authors:  F F Jabczenski; M Crawford
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Rush rod fixation of supracondylar fractures above total knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  M A Ritter; E M Keating; P M Faris; J B Meding
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures: a biomechanical analysis comparing cortical strut allograft plates and conventional metal plates.

Authors:  Christopher L Peters; Kent N Bachus; James S Davitt
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  5 in total

1.  The Baba classification focused on implant designs is useful in setting the therapeutic strategy for interprosthetic femoral fracture.

Authors:  Tomonori Baba; Kazuo Kaneko; Yasuhiro Homma; Hironori Ochi; Yu Ozaki; Taiji Watari; Mikio Matsumoto
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-09-27

2.  History of internal fixation with plates (part 2): new developments after World War II; compressing plates and locked plates.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Jacques Pariat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  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

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

Review 5.  Interprosthetic femoral fractures: management challenges.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.