Preoperative Planning and Surgical Technique in the Management of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Using a Tapered Modular Fluted Prosthesis With Distal Fixation

Periprosthetic fractures are one of the main reasons for revision surgery according to the data of large joint replacement registers. Treatment of patients with periprosthetic fractures is associated with a big number of complications and still keeps its relevance. Purposeof the study is to evaluate treatment outcome of patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures in hipreplacement. Material and Methods.The authors performed a retrospective analysis of medical histories of 76 patients whounderwent treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. The patients were divided into groups by the Unified Classification System (UCS). Follow up period was from 6 to 124 months (mean of 34.90±28.81). Results.3 cases (3.9%) of periprosthetic femoral fractures were the complications after primary hip arthroplastyand occurred intraoperatively, 75 cases (96.1%) were complications after revision surgery; 56 cases (71.8%) were reported with uncemented and 22 cases (28.2%) with cemented femoral components. In 30 cases (38.5%) fractures had a iatrogenic nature and occurred intraoperatively, in 48 cases (61.5%) — occurred due to high- and low energy trauma. Type B fractures were observed most often — in 53 cases (68%). Conservative treatment, fixation by cerclage or by plate and screws has proven to be the least effective operative options. In the group of patients with extended osteotomy of the greater trochanter the healing was achieved in 90.5% of cases, while in the group without osteotomy — in 75% of cases. Low healing rate of periprosthetic fractures was observed for A and B1 type fractures (65% and 66.7% respectively). Follow up of patients with B2, B3 and C type fractures demonstrated consolidation in more than 80% of cases. Various complications were reported in 17 cases (21.8%). Conclusion.Effective treatment of patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures was associated with extendedosteotomy of the greater trochanter (γ = 0.51;p= 0.032), absence of complications in postoperative period (R= 0.55;p= 0.00001), B2, B3 and C fracture types (γ= 0.40;p= 0.02) and use of revision uncemented femoral components withdistal fixation (γ = 0.35;p= 0.018). In the authors opinion use of sutures or cerclage wires are not effective in cases of trochanteric fractures and stable femoral components; it would be preferable to perform internal fixation by a plate with hooks such as Dall-Miles. In case of doubts in regard of stem stability the revision should rather stipulate use of uncemented femoral components, in particular long stems with distal fixation.

Download Full-text

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

Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/21514593211067072 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 215145932110670

Author(s):

Nicola Mondanelli ◽

Elisa Troiano ◽

Andrea Facchini ◽

Martina Cesari ◽

Giovanni Battista Colasanti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surgical Technique ◽

Medical Treatment ◽

Platelet Rich Plasma ◽

Femoral Fractures ◽

Rigid Fixation ◽

Hardware Failure ◽

Stem Retention ◽

Structural Allograft ◽

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures ◽

Therapeutic Algorithm

Introduction There is lack of consensus regarding best operative fixation strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around a stable stem. Evidence exists that some patterns of fracture around a stable stem are better treated with revision surgery than with standard fixation. Anyway, a more aggressive surgical procedure together with medical treatment could allow for stem retention, and reduced risk of nonunion/hardware failure, even in these cases. Significance This paper is placed in a broader context of lack of studies on the matter, and its aim is to shed some light on the management of PFFs around a stable stem, when peculiar mechanical and biological aspects are present. Results Based on our casuistry in the treatment of nonunions after PFF successfully treated with original stem retention, and on review of Literature about risk factors for fixation failure, an algorithm is proposed that can guide in choosing the ideal surgical technique even for first-time PFFs with a stable stem, without resorting to revision. Mechanical (major and minor) and biological (local and systemic) factors that may influence fracture healing, leading to nonunion and hardware failure, and subsequent need for re-operation, are considered. The proposed surgical technique consists of rigid fixation with absolute stability (using a plate and structural allograft) plus local biological support (structural allograft and autologous bone marrow concentrate over a platelet-rich plasma-based scaffold) at fracture site. Systemic anabolic treatment (Teriparatide) is also administered in the post-operative period. Conclusion Mechanical factors are not the only issues to be considered when choosing the surgical approach to PFFs over a stable stem. Systemic and local biological conditions should be taken into account, as well. A therapeutic algorithm is proposed, given the prosthetic stem to be stable, considering mechanical and biological criteria.

Download Full-text

Finite element analysis of double‐plate fixation using reversed locking compression‐distal femoral plates for Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-021-04152-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Daisuke Takahashi ◽

Yoshihiro Noyama ◽

Tsuyoshi Asano ◽

Tomohiro Shimizu ◽

Tohru Irie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Finite Element Analysis ◽

Finite Element ◽

Plate Fixation ◽

Weight Bearing ◽

Femoral Fractures ◽

Full Weight Bearing ◽

Loading Test ◽

Lateral Plate ◽

Element Analysis ◽

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

Abstract Background Internal fixation is recommended for treating Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Although several fixation procedures have been developed with high fixation stability and union rates, long-term weight-bearing constructs are still lacking. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the stability of a double-plate procedure using reversed contralateral locking compression-distal femoral plates for fixation of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures under full weight-bearing. Methods Single- and double-plate fixation procedures for locking compression-distal femoral plates were analysed under an axial load of 1,500 N by finite element analysis and biomechanical loading tests. A vertical loading test was performed to the prosthetic head, and the displacements and strains were calculated based on load-displacement and load-strain curves generated by the static compression tests. Results The finite element analysis revealed that double-plate fixation significantly reduced stress concentration at the lateral plate place on the fracture site. Under full weight-bearing, the maximum von Mises stress in the lateral plate was 268 MPa. On the other hand, the maximum stress in the single-plating method occurred at the defect level of the femur with a maximum stress value of 1,303 MPa. The principal strains of single- and double-plate fixation were 0.63 % and 0.058 %, respectively. Consistently, in the axial loading test, the strain values at a 1,500 N loading of the single- and double-plate fixation methods were 1,274.60 ± 11.53 and 317.33 ± 8.03 (× 10− 6), respectively. Conclusions The present study suggests that dual-plate fixation with reversed locking compression-distal femoral plates may be an excellent treatment procedure for patients with Vancouver B1 fractures, allowing for full weight-bearing in the early postoperative period.

Download Full-text

Early Surgery Does Not Improve Outcomes for Patients with Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures—Results from the Registry for Geriatric Trauma of the German Trauma Society

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina57060517 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 57 (6) ◽

pp. 517

Author(s):

Christopher Bliemel ◽

Katherine Rascher ◽

Tom Knauf ◽

Juliana Hack ◽

Daphne Eschbach ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surgical Treatment ◽

Mortality Rate ◽

Femoral Fractures ◽

Geriatric Trauma ◽

Outcome Parameters ◽

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures ◽

Trauma Society ◽

Eq5d Index ◽

Early Surgical Treatment

Background and Objectives: Appropriate timing of surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) in geriatric patients remains unclear. Data from a large international geriatric trauma register were analyzed to examine the outcome of patients with PFF with respect to the timing of surgical stabilization. Materials and Methods: The Registry for Geriatric Trauma of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU)) (ATR-DGU) was analyzed. Patients treated surgically for PFF were included in this analysis. As outcome parameters, in-house mortality rate and mortality at the 120-day follow-up as well as mobility, the EQ5D index score and reoperation rate were analyzed in relation to early (<48 h) or delayed (≥48 h) surgical stabilization. Results: A total of 1178 datasets met the inclusion criteria; 665 fractures were treated with osteosynthesis (56.4%), and 513 fractures were treated by implant change (43.5%). In contrast to the osteosynthesis group, the group with implant changes underwent delayed surgical treatment more often. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of mortality rate (p = 0.310), walking ability (p = 0.239) and EQ5D index after seven days (p = 0.812) revealed no significant differences between early (<48 h) and delayed (≥48 h) surgical stabilization. These items remained insignificant at the follow-up as well. However, the odds of requiring a reoperation within 120 days were significantly higher for delayed surgical treatment (OR: 1.86; p = 0.003). Conclusions: Early surgical treatment did not lead to decreased mortality rates in the acute phase or in the midterm. Except for the rate of reoperation, all other outcome parameters remained unaffected. Nevertheless, for most patients, early surgical treatment should be the goal, so as to achieve early mobilization and avoid secondary nonsurgical complications. If early stabilization is not possible, it can be assumed that orthogeriatric co-management will help protect these patients from further harm.

Download Full-text