Literature DB >> 27037427

Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience.

M P Abdel1, C D Watts1, M T Houdek1, D G Lewallen1, D J Berry1.   

Abstract

AIM AND METHODS: The goals of this study were to define the risk factors, nature, chronology, and treatment strategies adopted for periprosthetic femoral fractures in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs).
RESULTS: There were 564 intra-operative fractures (1.7%); 529 during uncemented stem placement (3.0%) and 35 during cemented stem placement (0.23%). Intra-operative fractures were more common in females and patients over 65 years (p < 0.001). The majority occurred during placement of the femoral component (60%), and involved the calcar (69%). There were 557 post-operative fractures (20-year probability: 3.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2 to 3.9); 335 fractures after placement of an uncemented stem (20-year probability: 7.7%; 95% CI 6.2 to 9.1) and 222 after placement of a cemented stem (20-year probability: 2.1%; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.5). The probability of a post-operative fracture within 30 days after an uncemented stem was ten times higher than a cemented stem. The most common post-operative fracture type was a Vancouver AG (32%; n = 135), with 67% occurring after a fall. In all, 36% (n = 152) were treated with revision arthroplasty.
CONCLUSION: In summary, intra-operative fractures occur 14 times more often with uncemented stems. Female patients over 65 years of age are at highest risk. Post-operative fractures are also most common with uncemented stems, but are independent of age or gender. Cumulative risk of post-operative periprosthetic femur fracture was 3.5% at 20 years. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Intra-operative fractures occur 14 times more often with uncemented stems, particularly with female patients over 65 years of age, while post-operative fracture risk is independent of age or gender, but still increased with uncemented stems. ©2016 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Periprosthetic fractures; femur; epidemiology; primary total hip arthroplasty; Vancouver classification

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27037427     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.37201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  51 in total

1.  Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Luke G Menken; Jose A Rodriguez
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-12-14

Review 2.  Orthogeriatric co-management for the care of older subjects with hip fracture: recommendations from an Italian intersociety consensus.

Authors:  Antonio De Vincentis; Astrid Ursula Behr; Giuseppe Bellelli; Marco Bravi; Anna Castaldo; Lucia Galluzzo; Giovanni Iolascon; Stefania Maggi; Emilio Martini; Alberto Momoli; Graziano Onder; Marco Paoletta; Luca Pietrogrande; Mauro Roselli; Mauro Ruggeri; Carmelinda Ruggiero; Fabio Santacaterina; Luigi Tritapepe; Amedeo Zurlo; Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 3.636

Review 3.  Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and current treatment.

Authors:  Antonio Capone; Stefano Congia; Roberto Civinini; Giuseppe Marongiu
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2017-10-25

Review 4.  Principles of managing Vancouver type B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished tapered femoral stems.

Authors:  Conal Quah; Matthew Porteous; Arthur Stephen
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-11-26

5.  Higher prevalence of periprosthetic fractures with ceramic on polyethylene hip bearing compared with ceramic on ceramic on the contralateral side: a forty year experience with hip osteonecrosis.

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

6.  DXA evaluation of femoral bone mineral density and cortical width in patients with prior total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  T Blaty; D Krueger; R Illgen; M Squire; B Heiderscheit; N Binkley; P Anderson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Incidence and pattern of periprosthetic hip fractures around the stem in different stem geometry.

Authors:  Umberto Cottino; Federico Dettoni; Giorgia Caputo; Davide E Bonasia; Paolo Rossi; Roberto Rossi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Use of Natural Language Processing Tools to Identify and Classify Periprosthetic Femur Fractures.

Authors:  Meagan E Tibbo; Cody C Wyles; Sunyang Fu; Sunghwan Sohn; David G Lewallen; Daniel J Berry; Hilal Maradit Kremers
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 9.  [Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum and femur : Causes-classification-treatment algorithms].

Authors:  D M Ates; P Koenen; R Otchwemah; H Bäthis
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Difference in trochanteric thickness between well-aligned and malaligned polished collarless stem.

Authors:  R Thangaraj; William Wilson-Theaker; A Kumar; J Oakley
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-10-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.