Tomonori Baba1, Kazuo Kaneko2, Yasuhiro Homma2, Hironori Ochi2, Yu Ozaki2, Taiji Watari2, Mikio Matsumoto2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. tobaba@juntendo.ac.jp. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of femoral fracture with implants on the proximal and distal sides to verify whether actual fracture morphologies follow the fracture types of Baba classification focusing on implant designs useful for periprosthetic femoral fracture. METHODS: Prosthesis was present in 85 with periprosthetic femoral fractures. Excluding 73 patients with fracture around the femoral stem or fracture of the TKA femoral component alone, 12 patients with 14 legs with both implants were investigated. All patients were radiographically assessed for implant stability according to the Baba classification. For clinical evaluation, intra- and postoperative complications, the operation time, and intra-operative blood loss were investigated. RESULTS: The Baba classification fracture type showed the implant as unstable and stable types in 3 and 11 legs, respectively. The consistency rate between the Baba classification-based judgment of plain radiograms acquired at the time of injury and actual surgical findings was 100%. As a result of treatment according to the Baba classification, bone union was achieved in all patients. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the Baba classification, implant stability could be sufficiently evaluated in not only periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty, but also interprosthetic femoral fractures, thereby verifying its usefulness in setting the treatment strategy.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of femoral fracture with implants on the proximal and distal sides to verify whether actual fracture morphologies follow the fracture types of Baba classification focusing on implant designs useful for periprosthetic femoral fracture. METHODS: Prosthesis was present in 85 with periprosthetic femoral fractures. Excluding 73 patients with fracture around the femoral stem or fracture of the TKA femoral component alone, 12 patients with 14 legs with both implants were investigated. All patients were radiographically assessed for implant stability according to the Baba classification. For clinical evaluation, intra- and postoperative complications, the operation time, and intra-operative blood loss were investigated. RESULTS: The Baba classification fracture type showed the implant as unstable and stable types in 3 and 11 legs, respectively. The consistency rate between the Baba classification-based judgment of plain radiograms acquired at the time of injury and actual surgical findings was 100%. As a result of treatment according to the Baba classification, bone union was achieved in all patients. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the Baba classification, implant stability could be sufficiently evaluated in not only periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty, but also interprosthetic femoral fractures, thereby verifying its usefulness in setting the treatment strategy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Baba classification; Implant design; Interprosthetic femoral fracture; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Rorabeck classification; Vancouver classification
Authors: Joseph Maratt; Peter L Schilling; Sven Holcombe; Ryan Dougherty; Ryan Murphy; Stewart C Wang; James A Goulet Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Robinson Esteves Santos Pires; Paulo Roberto Barbosa de Toledo Lourenço; Pedro José Labronici; Leonardo Rosa da Rocha; Daniel Balbachevsky; Francisco Ramiro Cavalcante; Marco Antônio Percope de Andrade Journal: Injury Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.586
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