Reinhard Windhager1, Markus Schreiner2, Kevin Staats2, Sebastian Apprich2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. reinhard.windhager@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in patients with multiple revisions, remain challenging mainly due to bone quality and loss of bone stock. Megaprostheses, although providing immediate stability and weight bearing, are rarely used in this indication. The aim of the study was to provide a description of the surgical technique and evaluate the outcome of this technique with respectable published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic literature review revealed seven studies dealing with treating PPF after TKA using megaprostheses. Including the results of 11 cases treated in our institution between January 2008 and December 2014, 144 megaprostheses have been evaluated in the current literature with indication of PPF after TKA. Mean age at operation ranged from 68.4 to 81 years and mean follow-up from 6 to 58.6 months. RESULTS: Revision rates after implantation of megaprostheses in PPFs ranged from 0 % (two studies with a mean follow-up of 6 and 33 months, respectively) to 55 %, all primarily performed for mechanical and nonmechanical failures (20 and 25, respectively). However infection was the most predominant reason for nonmechanical failure. Mortality rates ranged from 6.6 % after 1 year to 45 % after a mean follow-up of 34 months. CONCLUSION: Megaprostheses represent a valuable option in distal femoral PPFs type 3 according to Su et al., as well as proximal tibia PPFs type 1B according to Felix et al., with loose tibial components. Infection remains the most frequent nonmechanical complication. Prospective clinical studies are required to exactly define the outcome of this technique in PPFs; use of the Henderson classification system would allow comparison between megaprostheses in oncological and nononcological indications.
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in patients with multiple revisions, remain challenging mainly due to bone quality and loss of bone stock. Megaprostheses, although providing immediate stability and weight bearing, are rarely used in this indication. The aim of the study was to provide a description of the surgical technique and evaluate the outcome of this technique with respectable published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic literature review revealed seven studies dealing with treating PPF after TKA using megaprostheses. Including the results of 11 cases treated in our institution between January 2008 and December 2014, 144 megaprostheses have been evaluated in the current literature with indication of PPF after TKA. Mean age at operation ranged from 68.4 to 81 years and mean follow-up from 6 to 58.6 months. RESULTS: Revision rates after implantation of megaprostheses in PPFs ranged from 0 % (two studies with a mean follow-up of 6 and 33 months, respectively) to 55 %, all primarily performed for mechanical and nonmechanical failures (20 and 25, respectively). However infection was the most predominant reason for nonmechanical failure. Mortality rates ranged from 6.6 % after 1 year to 45 % after a mean follow-up of 34 months. CONCLUSION: Megaprostheses represent a valuable option in distal femoral PPFs type 3 according to Su et al., as well as proximal tibia PPFs type 1B according to Felix et al., with loose tibial components. Infection remains the most frequent nonmechanical complication. Prospective clinical studies are required to exactly define the outcome of this technique in PPFs; use of the Henderson classification system would allow comparison between megaprostheses in oncological and nononcological indications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Knee joint; Megaprosthesis; Periprosthetic fracture; Total knee arthroplasty
Authors: Eric R Henderson; John S Groundland; Elisa Pala; Jeremy A Dennis; Rebecca Wooten; David Cheong; Reinhard Windhager; Rainer I Kotz; Mario Mercuri; Philipp T Funovics; Francis J Hornicek; H Thomas Temple; Pietro Ruggieri; G Douglas Letson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Federico Sacchetti; Raphael Kilian; Francesco Muratori; Stephane Cherix; Lorenzo Foschi; Riccardo Morganti; Domenico Andrea Campanacci; Rodolfo Capanna Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2022-05
Authors: Marco De Gori; Guido Scoccianti; Filippo Frenos; Leonardo Bettini; Filippo Familiari; Giorgio Gasparini; Giovanni Beltrami; Pierluigi Cuomo; Pietro De Biase; Rodolfo Capanna Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Sebastian R Apprich; Arastoo Nia; Markus M Schreiner; Maximilian Jesch; Christoph Böhler; Reinhard Windhager Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Giorgio Cacciola; Fabio Mancino; Federico De Meo; Antongiulio Bruschetta; Ivan De Martino; Pietro Cavaliere Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2021-08-27
Authors: Klemens Vertesich; Stephan E Puchner; Kevin Staats; Markus Schreiner; Christian Hipfl; Bernd Kubista; Johannes Holinka; Reinhard Windhager Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.362