Literature DB >> 30765184

Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty: An algorithm of treatment.

Vito Pavone1, Claudia de Cristo2, Antonio Di Stefano2, Luciano Costarella2, Gianluca Testa2, Giuseppe Sessa2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) following total hip arthroplasty are becoming more prevalent and management of these fractures is often demanding. The surgeon has to assess in detail implant loosening, bone loss and type of fracture. The aim of the study is to identify the suitability of a treatment algorithm, based on the Vancouver classification that takes into account the activity and comorbidity of each patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively assessed 38 patients who were surgically treated for a PFF around total hip arthroplasty between 2010 and 2014. All fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. There were 14 type B1, 8 type B2, 10 type B3 and 6 type C fractures. The data examined were age, sex, mechanism of injury, type of fracture, ASA score, type of surgery and complications. Radiographic evaluations were performed at 1, 3, 6 months and every 12 months thereafter. Clinical results were measured using the Merle-d'Aubigné-Postel score. Treatment options included an ORIF in 22 patients and a stem revision in 16 patients, with or without plates or supplemental cortical strut grafting when required.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 3.1 years, mean age was 71.2 years and six patients (15.7%) died. Union was obtained in all patients in a mean of 16 weeks. Three patients required a surgical revision: one for stem loosening and two for re-fracture after a new fall. One patient had varus malunion of the femur. The mean postoperative Merle-d'Aubigné-Postel score was 13.2. Thirteen patients showed excellent results, 14 had a good result, three had a fair outcome and two had a poor result. Twenty patients returned to their baseline mobility status, while 12 patients had either a decline in their ambulatory status or a need for additional assistive devices.
CONCLUSIONS: PFF remains a serious complication of hip arthroplasty that is accompanied by high morbidity and mortality rates. This study shows how patients' comorbidities and functional demand can direct the proper treatment. This is a suitable algorithm for the treatment of PFF, which can provide satisfactory results in terms of pain and function.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allograft; Fixation; Long-stem porous-coated implant; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Revision; Total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30765184     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  8 in total

1.  Clinical and Radiological Outcome of Vancouver B2 Fracture Treated With Open Reduction and Internal Fixation. A Multicenter Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  Peter Biberthaler; Patrick Pflüger; Markus Wurm; Marc Hanschen; Chlodwig Kirchhoff; Joseph Aderinto; George Whitwell; Peter V Giannoudis; Nikolaos Kanakaris
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 2.884

2.  Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate.

Authors:  C Baum; M Leimbacher; P Kriechling; A Platz; D Cadosch
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2019-09-24

3.  Combined Surgical and Medical Treatment for Vancouver B1 and C Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proposal of a Therapeutic Algorithm While Retaining the Original Stable Stem.

Authors:  Nicola Mondanelli; Elisa Troiano; Andrea Facchini; Martina Cesari; Giovanni Battista Colasanti; Vanna Bottai; Francesco Muratori; Carla Caffarelli; Stefano Gonnelli; Stefano Giannotti
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2021-12-21

4.  Femur Strength is Similar Before and After Iatrogenic Fracture During Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Analysis.

Authors:  Bailey J Ross; Akshar H Patel; J Heath Wilder; John M Weldy; Charles S Dranoff; Matthew J Weintraub; Nathan E Kim; Hao Wang; William F Sherman
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-04-04

5.  Revision rate is higher in patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following revision arthroplasty in comparison with ORIF following our algorithm: a two-center 1 analysis of 129 patients.

Authors:  Patrick Pflüger; Eftychios Bolierakis; Markus Wurm; Klemens Horst; Frank Hildebrand; Peter Biberthaler
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 2.374

6.  Stabilization of Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures With Cerclage Wiring: A Retrospective Chart Review.

Authors:  Ajith Malige; Matthew Beck; Frederick Mun; Maddie Goss; Henry Boateng; Chinenye Nwachuku
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-05-17

Review 7.  Treatment algorithm in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: osteosynthesis vs revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  David González-Martín; José Luis Pais-Brito; Sergio González-Casamayor; Ayron Guerra-Ferraz; Jorge Ojeda-Jiménez; Mario Herrera-Pérez
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2022-08-04

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.