Matthew P Abdel1, Umberto Cottino2, Tad M Mabry3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. abdel.matthew@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. cottino.umberto@mayo.edu. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. mabry.tad@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review. METHODS: This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion. RESULTS: Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.
PURPOSE: As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review. METHODS: This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion. RESULTS: Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.
Entities:
Keywords:
Femur; Periprosthetic fractures; Total hip arthroplasty (THA); Vancouver classification
Authors: George Pavlou; Pavlos Panteliadis; David Macdonald; John A Timperley; Graham Gie; Gordon Bancroft; Eleftherios Tsiridis Journal: Hip Int Date: 2011 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Jose A Rodriguez; Robert Fada; Steven B Murphy; Vijay J Rasquinha; Chitranjan S Ranawat Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Mehran Moazen; Jonathan H Mak; Lee W Etchels; Zhongmin Jin; Ruth K Wilcox; Alison C Jones; Eleftherios Tsiridis Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Timothy Bhattacharyya; Denis Chang; James B Meigs; Daniel M Estok; Henrik Malchau Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: P M Prodinger; N Harrasser; C Suren; F Pohlig; H Mühlhofer; J Schauwecker; R von Eisenhart-Rothe Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Philippe Hernigou; Jean Charles Auregan; Claire Bastard; Victor Housset; Charles Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette; Arnaud Dubory Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-03-04 Impact factor: 3.075