Literature DB >> 27600334

Outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip replacement treated with polyaxial locking plate.

M F Hoffmann1, S Lotzien2, T A Schildhauer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with total hip replacement (THR) is likely to grow. Periprosthetic femoral fractures occur in 0.1-4.5 % of patients with THR. Treatment of periprosthetic fractures in the vicinity of well-fixed implants has focused on lateral plating. The purpose of this study was to evaluate polyaxial locking plate treatment of periprosthetic fractures with THR in regard to fracture type, surgical procedure, complications, and outcome.
METHODS: Between 2007 and 2013, 109 patients underwent surgical treatment for periprosthetic femur fractures with 66 fractures in the vicinity to a THR. Fifteen patients were excluded. Therefore, 51 patients with a mean age of 78.7 years were identified. There were 76.5 % females. Average BMI was 27.1 kg/m2. Follow-up averaged 25 months. Total hip stems were uncemented in 63 %. Low-energy mechanism predominated. Fractures were classified according to AO/OTA and Vancouver classifications with the majority (70.6 %) classified as AO/OTA type A fractures. Surgeries were performed utilizing a polyaxial locking plate. Complications were recorded concerning infection, union, fixation failure, and revision surgery.
RESULTS: After the index procedure, 90.2 % healed. Non-union formation was diagnosed in 5.9 % with 2.0 % leading to hardware failure. All patients with non-union formation had interprosthetic fractures (χ 2 = 0.016). Additionally, these fractures were classified as AO/OTA type B fractures (χ 2 = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management despite polyaxial locked plate fixation continues to be challenging and may still result in non-union formation. Non-union formation is increased in AO/OTA type B fractures and related to interprosthetic fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Femur; Fracture; Locked plating; Non-union; Outcome; Periprosthetic; Total hip replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27600334     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-016-1851-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  39 in total

1.  National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2007 summary.

Authors:  Margaret Jean Hall; Carol J DeFrances; Sonja N Williams; Aleksandr Golosinskiy; Alexander Schwartzman
Journal:  Natl Health Stat Report       Date:  2010-10-26

Review 2.  A systematic review of open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures with or without allograft strut, cerclage, and locked plates.

Authors:  Ryan E Moore; Keith Baldwin; Matthew S Austin; Samir Mehta
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Outcome of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures following knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  M F Hoffmann; C B Jones; D L Sietsema; S J Koenig; P Tornetta
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2012-02-18       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 4.  Fractures of the femur after hip replacement.

Authors:  C P Duncan; B A Masri
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1995

5.  Locked plating of periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Zhiyong Hou; Thomas R Bowen; Kaan Irgit; Kent Strohecker; Michelle E Matzko; James Widmaier; Wade R Smith
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 6.  Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty. A statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients.

Authors:  M A Mont; D C Maar
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee.

Authors:  J L Marsh; Theddy F Slongo; Julie Agel; J Scott Broderick; William Creevey; Thomas A DeCoster; Laura Prokuski; Michael S Sirkin; Bruce Ziran; Brad Henley; Laurent Audigé
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  P Adolphson; U Jonsson; R Kalén
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1987

9.  Femoral fracture following hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  H O Fredin; H Lindberg; A S Carlsson
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1987-02

10.  Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur.

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

View more
  10 in total

1.  Periprosthetic joint infection is the main reason for failure in patients following periprosthetic fracture treated with revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Janna van den Kieboom; Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala; Liang Xiong; Christian Klemt; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 2.  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

3.  Clinical outcome and quality of life of patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures and retained total knee arthroplasty treated with polyaxial locking plates: a single-center experience.

Authors:  Sebastian Lotzien; Clemens Hoberg; Martin F Hoffmann; Thomas A Schildhauer
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-06-22

4.  Correlations between Vancouver type of periprosthetic femur fracture and treatment outcomes.

Authors:  Pawel Legosz; Anna E Platek; Anna Rys-Czaporowska; Filip M Szymanski; Pawel Maldyk
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-05-27

5.  Comparison of different fixation techniques for periprosthetic fractures: a biomechanical study of a new implant.

Authors:  Mehmet Nuri Konya; Ugur Yuzuguldu; Recep Altin; Ugur Fidan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Current Practice of Italian Association of Revision Surgery Members in the Treatment of Unified Classification System Type B Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture Around Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Antonio Capone; Pietro Cavaliere; Antonio Campacci; Christian Carulli; Giovanni Pignatti; Filippo Randelli; Bruno Marelli; Paolo Esopi; Stefano Congia; Giuseppe Marongiu
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2022-03-24

7.  Use of the Locking Attachment Plate for Internal Fixation of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures.

Authors:  Bryce Wall; Jeffrey B Stambough; Steven M Cherney; Simon C Mears
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2022-05-03

8.  Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures and Their Surgical Outcomes Between 2011 and 2021: A Single-Centre Observational Study.

Authors:  Paul J Baggott; Mohamed Zubair Farook; Matthew Pritchard; Hardeep Singh; Anushruti Bista; Anshul Sobti; Ashwin Unnithan
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-08-24

9.  Open reduction and locked compression plate fixation, with or without allograft strut, for periprosthetic fractures in patients who had a well-fixed femoral stem: a retrospective study with an average 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Hui Lv; Xing Guo; Yuan Hui Wang; Zhong Jie Zhang; Long Fei Zou; Hao Xue; Deng Hua Huang; Mei Yun Tan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review.

Authors:  Clemens Schopper; Matthias Luger; Günter Hipmair; Bernhard Schauer; Tobias Gotterbarm; Antonio Klasan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.362

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.