Literature DB >> 33133411

Feasibility of the Inner-Side-Out Use of the LC-DCP for Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Heejae Won1, Jun-Young Kim2, Seung-Hoon Baek1,3, Wonki Hong1, Jee-Wook Yoon1, Shin-Yoon Kim1,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal technique for plate fixation to treat type B and C periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) is unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiographic results of inner-side-out limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) to treat PFFs during or after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
METHODS: This retrospective study comprised of four men and six women with an average age of 64.7 years who underwent open reduction and internal fixation with an inner-side-out LC-DCP technique to treat PFFs; the reduction was maintained preliminary with the use of contoured plate and cables, and the grooves on the undersurface of LC-DCP for limited contact was used to hold and prevent the cables from slippage during tightening the cables. There were five intraoperative and five postoperative PFFs after THA. According to the Vancouver classification, the intraoperative PFFs included type B2 in two, B3 in one and C3 in two patients while postoperative PFFs were categorized into type B1 in one, type B2 in two and type C in two patients. The mean follow-up duration was 5.9 years (range 1-10.4). We evaluated radiographic union and complications after index operation.
RESULTS: All patients demonstrated radiographic bone union at an average follow-up duration of 4.4 months (range 3-8). Two patients showed stem subsidence after revision THA and one patient demonstrated a subsequent peri-implant fracture around the distal end of plate after union of the initial PPF; one patient underwent re-revision THA for stem loosening while another patient went through refixation for the peri-implant fracture. There was no nonunion, infection, nerve injury, or dislocation.
CONCLUSION: The inner-side-out LC-DCP technique showed satisfactory radiographic outcome. In certain situations where locking plates are not available, this technique might be a useful alternative for treating type B and C PFFs. © Indian Orthopaedics Association 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inner-side-out; Limited contact dynamic compression plate; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Total hip arthroplasty

Year:  2020        PMID: 33133411      PMCID: PMC7572970          DOI: 10.1007/s43465-020-00200-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Orthop        ISSN: 0019-5413            Impact factor:   1.251


  28 in total

1.  In vitro mechanical comparison of 2.0 and 2.4 limited-contact dynamic compression plates and 2.0 dynamic compression plates of different thicknesses.

Authors:  Adam M Strom; Tanya C Garcia; Karl Jandrey; Michael L Huber; Susan M Stover
Journal:  Vet Surg       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 1.495

2.  The limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP).

Authors:  S M Perren; K Klaue; O Pohler; M Predieri; S Steinemann; E Gautier
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Re-fractures after periprosthetic femoral fracture: A difficult to treat growing evidence.

Authors:  Filippo Randelli; Fabrizio Pace; Daniele Priano; Alessio Giai Via; Pietro Randelli
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.586

4.  Locking compression plates for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed total hip and knee implants.

Authors:  Gavin C A Wood; Doug R Naudie; James McAuley; Richard W McCalden
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Cable plate fixation for Vancouver Type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures-Our experience and identification of a subset at risk of non-union.

Authors:  Dip Chakrabarti; Niyamathullah Thokur; Serajdin Ajnin
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2019-10-05       Impact factor: 2.586

6.  Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a well-fixed hip arthroplasty implant: span the whole bone.

Authors:  Gele B Moloney; Edward R Westrick; Peter A Siska; Ivan S Tarkin
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  The biomechanical analysis of three plating fixation systems for periprosthetic femoral fracture near the tip of a total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  James P Lever; Rad Zdero; Markku T Nousiainen; James P Waddell; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 8.  Periprosthetic femoral bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: systematic analysis of the effect of stem design.

Authors:  Ashleen R Knutsen; Nicole Lau; Donald B Longjohn; Edward Ebramzadeh; Sophia N Sangiorgio
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 9.  Biomechanical Concepts for Fracture Fixation.

Authors:  Michael Bottlang; Christine E Schemitsch; Aaron Nauth; Milton Routt; Kenneth A Egol; Gillian E Cook; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Following Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joong-Myung Lee; Tae-Sup Kim; Tae-Ho Kim
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2018-06-04
View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.