Literature DB >> 32425421

The location of the fracture determines the better solution, osteosynthesis or revision, in periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Yoshihiko Okudera1, Hiroaki Kijima2,1, Shin Yamada1, Natsuo Konishi1, Hitoshi Kubota1, Hiroshi Tazawa1, Takayuki Tani1, Norio Suzuki1, Keiji Kamo1, Masashi Fujii2,1, Ken Sasaki1, Tetsuya Kawano2,1, Yosuke Iwamoto1, Itsuki Nagahata1, Takanori Miura1, Naohisa Miyakoshi2, Yoichi Shimada2,1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Periprosthetic femoral fractures are difficult to treat, but few reports have included many periprosthetic femoral fractures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the trends and characteristics of a large number of periprosthetic femoral fractures and to determine the best treatment strategy for such fractures.
METHODS: The fracture type according to the Vancouver classification, the stem fixation style of previous surgery, the elapsed time from previous surgery, and the treatment method for periprosthetic fractures of 51 patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures who were seen between 2006 and 2018 were investigated.
RESULTS: The types of fractures according to the Vancouver classification were: type A 5.9%, type B1 47%, type B2 20%, type B3 2.0%, and type C 25%. Of the previous surgeries, 76% were cementless fixation, and 24% were cemented fixation. The mean duration from previous surgery to periprosthetic femoral fracture was 8 years and 7 months (1-358 months), and injury within 1 year from previous surgery was most commonly observed (24%). As treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures, conservative treatment was performed in 8%, and surgery was performed in 92%. Of the surgery cases, 53% underwent osteosynthesis, and 39% underwent revision surgery. Of type B1 surgery cases, 58% were treated with osteosynthesis, and 33% underwent revision surgery, although type B1 had no stem loosening.
CONCLUSION: Many periprosthetic femoral fractures occurred within 1 year after the previous surgery. Therefore, preventive measures for periprosthetic femoral fractures should be started immediately after total hip replacement. In addition, revision surgery was performed even if the stem was not loosened in cases where it was judged that sufficient osteosynthesis could not be performed.
© 2020 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Femoral neck replacement; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Revision arthroplasty; Total hip replacement; Vancouver classification

Year:  2020        PMID: 32425421      PMCID: PMC7225599          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  11 in total

1.  Modification of the Unified Classification System for periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jie-Feng Huang; Xian-Jun Jiang; Jian-Jian Shen; Ying Zhong; Pei-Jian Tong; Xiao-Hong Fan
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 1.601

2.  Plate Positioning in Periprosthetic or Interprosthetic Femur Fractures With Stable Implants-A Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  Matthias G Walcher; Karlmeinrad Giesinger; Ryan du Sart; Robert E Day; Markus S Kuster
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 3.  Fractures of the femur after hip replacement.

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

4.  Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Julian Joestl; Marcus Hofbauer; Nikolaus Lang; Thomas Tiefenboeck; Stefan Hajdu
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.586

5.  Increased risk of periprosthetic femur fractures associated with a unique cementless stem design.

Authors:  Chad D Watts; Matthew P Abdel; David G Lewallen; Daniel J Berry; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The excess mortality due to periprosthetic femur fracture. A study from the Swedish national hip arthroplasty register.

Authors:  H Lindahl; A Oden; G Garellick; H Malchau
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 7.  Periprosthetic femoral fracture - an interdisciplinary challenge.

Authors:  Alexander Hagel; Holger Siekmann; Karl-Stefan Delank
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  New classification focusing on implant designs useful for setting therapeutic strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Authors:  Tomonori Baba; Yasuhiro Homma; Rei Momomura; Hideo Kobayashi; Mikio Matsumoto; Kentaro Futamura; Atsuhiko Mogami; Akio Kanda; Itaru Morohashi; Kazuo Kaneko
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Clinical characteristics and risk factors of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with hip arthroplasty: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhendong Zhang; Qi Zhuo; Wei Chai; Ming Ni; Heng Li; Jiying Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  [Periprosthetic hip fracture type C Vancouver, what not to do].

Authors:  Mohamed Amine Karabila; Ahmed Bardouni
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2016-01-17
View more
  2 in total

1.  The impact of stem fixation method on Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture management.

Authors:  Katherine Wang; Eustathios Kenanidis; Zakareya Gamie; Khurram Suleman; Mark Miodownik; Mahsa Avadi; David Horne; Jonathan Thompson; Eleftherios Tsiridis; Mehran Moazen
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2022-01-06

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.