English

The treatment of fractions of the shaft of the femur using nylon cerclage.

Summary. Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are difficult to treat due to complex fracture morphology, high proportions of injuries associated with osteopenia, and the variability of injury patterns. Periprosthetic fractures associated with TKA are defined as fractures around the knee joint (femur, tibia, or patella) occurring within 5 cm of the intramedullary stem of the prosthesis or 15 cm of the joint. The incidence is estimated to be between 0.3% and 2.5% after primary TKA and up to 28% after revision TKA. There are several surgical and nonsurgical risk factors associated with postoperative periprosthetic fractures. Distal femoral periprosthetic fractures following TKA are the most common and reported to occur in 0.2–1.8% of patients after primary TKA. Tibial periprosthetic fractures have a reported prevalence of 0.07–0.1% in primary and 0.36% in revision knee arthroplasties. Patella fractures are the second most common periprosthetic fractures following TKA, with prevalence ranging from 0.68% to 1.19%, and are usually associated with a resurfaced patella. Several classification systems of periprosthetic fractures around TKA have been published and some treatment recommendations have been provided. However, most systems are subject to criticism and use different classification systems for the tibia, patella, and the femur.A variety of treatment methods are available for periprosthetic fractures. Conservative treatment can include protected weight bearing, splinting, or traction. Surgical treatment commonly involves closed intramedullary nailing or open reduction and internal fixation by plates. In cases of significant bone loss, a revision TKA may be indicated. In general, treatment must be guided based on the stability of the implant and the remaining bone quality, as determined by the presence of osteolysis and the location of the fracture.

Objective To analyze the risk factors associated with periprosthetic femoral fracture following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for displaced femoral neck fracture in aged patients. Methods From January 2013 to June 2016, 120 patients over 80 years old were treated by HA for displaced femoral neck fractures. They were 45 males and 75 females, with an average age of 85.2 years (from 80 to 97 years). Their fractures were Garden type Ⅲ(72 cases) and Garden type Ⅳ(48 cases). The time from injury to op-eration averaged 5.1 days. The patients were divided into a fracture group and a non-fracture group according to the presence or absence of the periprosthetic fracture. The general data of the 2 groups were compared; multivariate logistic regression analyses were done to indentify the influencing factors associated with periprosthetic femoral fracture. Results The 120 patients obtained a mean follow-up of 26.1 months (from 13 to 48 months). Periprosthetic femoral fracture occurred in 11 cases, giving an overall incidence of 9.2% (11/120). Compared with the non-fracture group, the average age was significantly older, the inci-dence of past fractures was significantly higher, significantly more types of uncemented stem were used, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading was significantly more severe for the fracture group (P 0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analyses revealed that age [OR=1.268, 95%CI (1.059, 1.517), P=0.010] and type of uncemented stem [OR=0.072, 95%CI (0.008, 0.625), P=0.017] were independent risk factors for periprosthetic fracture. Conclusions The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fracture in the elderly pa-tients may be high following HA for femoral neck fractures. Since age and uncemented stem may be independent risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture, surgeons should pay enough attention to them in clinic. Key words: Femoral neck fractures; Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Periprosthetic fractures; Risk factors; Aged, 80 and over

What's New in Hip Replacement.

Работа посвящена проблеме лечения перипротезных переломов бедренной кости у больных с функционирующим эндопротезом тазобедренного сустава. Отмечено, что проблема хирургического лечения перипротезных переломов крайне актуальна, что связано с прогрессивным увеличением количества имплантаций протеза тазобедренного сустава. Цель работы — определить направления разработки методов лечения переломов бедренной кости у резидентов с функционирующим эндопротезом тазобедренного сустава. В качестве варианта выбора рассматриваются методики металлоостеосинтеза на ножке эндопротеза. Проведен анализ лечения 17 больных с перипротезными переломами бедренной кости. Во всех случаях получены хорошие функциональные результаты в сроках наблюдения пять и более лет. Показано, что адекватный остеосинтез при перипротезном переломе бедренной кости на функционирующем эндопротезе тазобедренного сустава позволяет восстановить полную функцию протезированного сустава.

Contemporary Distal Femoral Replacements for Supracondylar Femoral Fractures Around Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture After Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty With Ilizarov External Fixation

High incidence of complications and poor clinical outcome in the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: An analysis of 71 cases

Periprosthetic fractures around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA), comminuted and intra-articular femur fractures, or fracture nonunions in osteoporotic bone represent technically challenging problems. This is particularly true when the fracture involves a loose femoral component or the pattern results in suboptimal fixation potential. These clinical indications often arise in an older and comorbid patient population in whom a principal goal of treatment includes allowing for early mobilization. Limited data indicate that arthroplasty via distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a reasonable alternative to open reduction and internal fixation, allowing for early ambulation with low complication rates. We performed a retrospective review of trauma and arthroplasty surgeries at three tertiary referral institutions. Adult patients treated for the above with a DFR were included. Patients with active infection, open and/or high-energy injuries and revisions unrelated to fracture were excluded. Patient demographics, treatment details, and outcomes were assessed. Between 2002 and 2017, 90 DFR's were performed for the above indications with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Postoperatively, 80 patients (88%) were allowed to weight bear as tolerated, and at final follow-up, 9 patients (10%) remained dependent on a wheelchair. The average arc of motion at final follow-up was 95 degrees. There were seven (8%) implant-related complications requiring secondary surgeries: two infections, one with associated component loosening; one fracture of the hinge mechanism and one femoral component failure in conjunction with a patellofemoral dislocation (both requiring revision); one case of patellofemoral arthrosis in a patient with an unresurfaced patella; one periprosthetic fracture with associated wound dehiscence; and one case of arthrofibrosis. In each of these cases, only modular components of the DFR were exchanged. All nonmodular components cemented into the femur or tibia were retained. DFR provides a viable reconstruction option in the treatment of acute distal femur fractures, periprosthetic femur fractures, and fracture nonunions. We noted that in an elderly patient population with high comorbidities, the complication and secondary surgery rates remained relatively low, while allowing for immediate weight bearing.

Osteoporosis is a risk factor for fractures, including those of the hip, vertebrae, and distal radius; however, the association between osteoporosis and periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not been much investigated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the association of the presence of systemic osteoporosis with periprosthetic fractures after TKA. This study included 34 patients with periprosthetic fractures following primary TKA and 106 controls matched for age and sex. Bone mineral density was evaluated at the femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Medical records were reviewed for age; sex; body mass index; smoking; rheumatoid arthritis, endocrine diseases, and cardiovascular diseases; history of glucocorticoid use; medication for osteoporosis; and history of previous osteoporotic fracture. In addition, anterior femoral notching after TKA was evaluated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to determine factors associated with periprosthetic fracture. The prevalence of osteoporosis in the fracture group was higher than that in the control group (61.8% vs. 40.6%, p=0.045). The rate of medication for osteoporosis was significantly low in the fracture group (47.6 % vs 76.7%, p=0.026). History of previous osteoporotic fracture (odds ratio [OR], 9.1; p=0.015) and osteoporosis (OR, 3.6; p=0.013) were significant risk factors for periprosthetic fractures after TKA. Medication for osteoporosis could decrease the risk of periprosthetic fracture (OR 0.3; p=0.020). Osteoporosis is a major risk factor for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after TKA. Therefore, careful assessment and proper treatment of osteoporosis need and the importance of taking osteoporotic medication needs to be recognized to the patients following primary TKA, especially in patients with a history of osteoporotic fracture. Prognostic study, level III.

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the reasons for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions at a tertiary hospital over a four-year period. The study aimed to identify the primary causes of TKA revisions and shed light on the implications for patient care and outcomes.The study included 31 patients who underwent revisions after primary knee arthroplasty between January 2017 and December 2020. A retrospective approach was employed, utilizing medical records and radiological findings to identify the reasons for TKA revisions. The study excluded oncology patients to focus on non-oncologic indications for revision surgeries. Patient demographics, including age and gender, were recorded. Data analysis involved categorizing the reasons for revision based on clinical assessments and radiological evidence.Among the 31 patients included in the study, 9 were males and 22 were females. The age of the patients ranged from 43 to 81, with a median age of 65 and an interquartile range of 18.5. The primary reasons for TKA revisions were identified as aseptic loosening (10 cases) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (13 cases). Additional reasons included revision from surgitech hemicap (1 case), patella osteoarthritis (1 case), stiffness (2 cases), patella maltracking (2 cases), periprosthetic fracture (1 case), and patella resurfacing (1 case). The findings of this retrospective cohort study highlight aseptic loosening and PJI as the leading causes of TKA revisions in the examined patient population.These results emphasize the importance of optimizing surgical techniques, implant selection, and infection control measures to reduce the incidence of TKA revisions. Future research efforts should focus on preventive strategies to enhance patient outcomes and mitigate the need for revision surgeries in TKA procedures.

Background: Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are not very uncommon. At present the Vancouver classification provides management algorithm for deciding treatment options but treatment options may vary between surgeons, where as in this study most patients managed were according to Vancouver classification management algorithm. The most common treatment modality for treating periprosthetic femoral fractures around a well-fixed stem is with osteosynthesis, but fracture with loose stem requires revision arthroplasty and fracture with poor bone requires bone graft augmentation. Methods: We reviewed 21 consecutive cases with periprosthetic femoral fractures in association with THA between June 2018 and December 2020. Locking and non locking compression plates, wires, cables system were used for osteosynthesis. Most of fractures were managed according to Vancouver classification management algorithm but modified in some cases according to the surgeon’s skills and judgment. Results: According to Vancouver classification, two patients had AL fractures, two patients had AG fractures, twelve Patients had B1, five patients had B2, two patients had B3 and one patient had type C fracture. Of these two cases were treated by conservatively, sixteen cases were treated by osteosynthesis, three cases by revision arthroplasty. Conclusion: The careful analysis of implant stability and fracture patterns is crucial for the optimal treatment of Periprosthetic femoral fractures. Expert Surgeon’s skills are needed to deal with periprosthetic femoral fractures.

The incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures is increasing. Multiple treatment methods exist to treat fractures surrounding stable hip arthroplasty implants including locking plate fixation, cable fixation, allograft augmentation, and revision arthroplasty. No consensus regarding optimal treatment has been reached, and significant complications remain. Recently, biomechanical studies have demonstrated the benefits of orthogonal dual-plate fixation, but little clinical data exist. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of dual-plated periprosthetic femur fractures around stable hip stems. Patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following hip arthroplasty with a stable femoral stem treated with dual-plate fixation were identified through chart review at a single institution. Fracture classification, fixation characteristics, radiographic outcomes, clinical outcomes and complications including re-operation were recorded. Over a 12-year period, 31 patients (mean age 77 years at surgery, range 48-94) underwent dual plating by three traumatologists for implant-stable periprosthetic femur fractures surrounding a hip arthroplasty stem. There were 27 Vancouver B1-type and 9 inter-prosthetic fractures. Average follow-up was 2 years. Of the 26 patients with minimum 6-month follow-up, 24 (92%) united after index surgery (mean time to union 6.0 months, range 1.5-14.0). Mean time to full weight-bearing post-operatively was 2.6 months (range 1.5-4.0 months). Two patients required secondary surgery to address nonunion. Dual-plating achieved high union rates with an acceptable complication profile for the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures surrounding a stable hip arthroplasty stem. Our preferred fixation construct involves a lateral plate spanning the entire femur secured with non-locking bicortical screws supplemented with an anteriorly based reconstruction plate. Additional prospective research is required to confirm the results of this study.

The number of patients requiring knee and hip arthroplasty has been steadily increasing, and periprosthetic fractures are on the rise. Locking plates are the most common treatment for periprosthetic fractures, but the use of cerclage wires with locking plate fixation has been controversial. Forty-seven patients with periprosthetic femur fractures were reviewed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients received locking plate alone and twenty-three patients were treated with locking plate and cerclage wires. Patients were evaluated for clinical and radiographic signs of union at two, six, twelve, twenty-four, and forty-eight weeks postoperatively. The average follow-up time in the plate group was 9.4 ± 6.7 months, while it was 6.0 ± 4.2 months in the cerclage wire group. The time to union in the cerclage wire group (3.6 ± 1.0 months) was significantly less than the plate group (4.8 ± 2.6 months). The group with the cerclage wires had a significantly lower revision rate of 0% compared to 20.8%. There was no statistical significance of union rate and complication rate between the two groups. Cerclage wires used with locking plate fixation successfully treats periprosthetic fractures of the femur with faster time to union, less complication, and fewer revisions.

Periprosthetic femoral fracture type and location are influenced by the presence of an ipsilateral knee arthroplasty implant: A case-control study of 84 interprosthetic femoral fractures