Literature DB >> 31098685

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

Umberto Cottino1, Federico Dettoni2, Giorgia Caputo2, Davide E Bonasia2, Paolo Rossi3, Roberto Rossi2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of total hip arthroplasties (THA) is expected to increase worldwide; thus, complications are likely to increase at the same ratio. In this scenario, periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are an increasing concern. Identifying the predisposing factors is important in order to prevent as much as possible the risk of PFF in the future. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The purpose of this study was to correlate the risk of periprosthetic femoral fractures to the most common patients' comorbidities and stem geometry. We reviewed all THA for non-oncologic indications between 2004 and 2014 with a mean follow-up of six years (range, 2-12). Three thousand two hundred forty-eight patients (3593 implants) were enrolled in the study, and 45 PFF were registered during this time period. Two thousand five hundred seventy-seven implants (71%) were straight stems, and 1015 (28.3%) were anatomic stems. All X-rays were then analyzed and classified according to the modified Vancouver classification.
RESULTS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures incidence was associated with anatomic stem geometry (p < 0.001, OR = 2.2), BMI (p < 0.001), and diabetes (p < 0.001, OR = 5.18). PFFs were not significantly associated with age, gender, and all the other variables. Fracture pattern was different between straight and anatomic stems. Clamshell fractures were more likely to occur in anatomic stems compared to straight stems (p < 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic femoral fractures are highly associated with obesity and osteoporosis. Anatomic stems reported a higher incidence of PPF than straight stems. The typical fracture type for anatomical stems is the clamshell pattern, while straight stems are more likely affected by type B fractures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clamshell fracture; Fracture risk factors; Periprosthetic femoral fracture—primary total hip arthroplasty; Stem geometry; Vancouver classification

Year:  2019        PMID: 31098685     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-019-04336-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  32 in total

Review 1.  Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review.

Authors:  Claudia C Sidler-Maier; James P Waddell
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Periprosthetic femoral fracture within two years after total hip replacement: analysis of 437,629 operations in the nordic arthroplasty register association database.

Authors:  Truike M Thien; Georgios Chatziagorou; Göran Garellick; Ove Furnes; Leif I Havelin; Keijo Mäkelä; Søren Overgaard; Alma Pedersen; Antti Eskelinen; Pekka Pulkkinen; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Periprosthetic fractures around a cementless hydroxyapatite-coated implant: a new fracture pattern is described.

Authors:  William N Capello; James A D'Antonio; Marybeth Naughton
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Epidemiology: hip and knee.

Authors:  D J Berry
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.472

5.  Young age and wedge stem design are risk factors for periprosthetic fracture after arthroplasty due to hip fracture. A case-control study.

Authors:  Roope Sarvilinna; Heini Huhtala; Jorma Pajamäki
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  High incidence of early subtrochanteric lateral cortical atrophy after hip arthroplasty using bone-conserving short stem.

Authors:  Yoon Je Cho; Chan Il Bae; Wan Keun Yoon; Young Soo Chun; Kee Hyung Rhyu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hans Lindahl
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-05-02       Impact factor: 2.586

8.  Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures.

Authors:  R K Beals; S S Tower
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Incidence of and risk factors for femoral fractures in the gap between hip and knee implants.

Authors:  José Antonio Valle Cruz; Antonio Luis Urda; Laura Serrano; Francisco Alberto Rodriguez-Gonzalez; Julio Otero; Enrique Moro; Luis López-Durán
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 10.  Total hip arthroplasty periprosthetic femoral fractures: a review of classification and current treatment.

Authors:  Ran Schwarzkopf; Julius K Oni; Scott E Marwin
Journal:  Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013)       Date:  2013
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Periprosthetic fracture as a late mode of failure of the Anatomique Benoist Girard II femoral prosthesis.

Authors:  Jonathan S Mulford; Ronnie Mathew; David Penn; Alana R Cuthbert; Richard De Steiger
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.025

2.  Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in cemented and uncemented stems according to Vancouver classification: observation of a new fracture pattern.

Authors:  James Karam; Paul Campbell; Shivang Desai; Michael Hunter
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.