OUTCOME OF PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURES IN HIP ARTHROPLASTY
- Authors: Korytkin A.A.1, El Moudni Y.M.1, Kovaldov K.A.1, Novikova Y.S.1, Belousov B.Y.1
-
Affiliations:
- Privolzhsky Research Medical University.
- Issue: Vol 24, No 3 (2018)
- Pages: 34-44
- Section: Clinical studies
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2311-2905/article/view/125158
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.21823/2311-2905-2018-24-3-34-44
- ID: 125158
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
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.
Purpose of the study is to evaluate treatment outcome of patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures in hip replacement.
Material and Methods. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of medical histories of 76 patients who underwent 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 arthroplasty and 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 extended osteotomy 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 with distal 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.
About the authors
A. A. Korytkin
Privolzhsky Research Medical University.
Author for correspondence.
Email: fake@neicon.ru
Andrey A. Korytkin — Cand. Sci. (Med.), head of Adult Orthopedics Department.
18, Verkhne-Volzhskaya nab., 603155, Nizhny Novgorod.
Russian FederationY. M. El Moudni
Privolzhsky Research Medical University.
Email: fake@neicon.ru
Younes M. El Moudni – resident.
18, Verkhne-Volzhskaya nab., 603155, Nizhny Novgorod.
Russian FederationK. A. Kovaldov
Privolzhsky Research Medical University.
Email: fake@neicon.ru
Kirill A. Kovaldov — graduate student, orthopedic surgeon.
18, Verkhne-Volzhskaya nab., 603155, Nizhny Novgorod.
Russian FederationY. S. Novikova
Privolzhsky Research Medical University.
Email: fake@neicon.ru
Yana S. Novikova — Cand. Sci. (Biol.), junior researcher.
18, Verkhne-Volzhskaya nab., 603155, Nizhny Novgorod.
Russian FederationB. Yu. Belousov
Privolzhsky Research Medical University.
Email: fake@neicon.ru
Boris Yu. Belousov — Cand. Sci. (Med), radiologist.
18, Verkhne-Volzhskaya nab., 603155, Nizhny Novgorod.
Russian FederationReferences
- Zagra L., Ceroni R.G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty. Eur Surg Orthops Traumatol. 2014;2527-2551. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-34746-7_200.
- Amenabar T., Rahman W.A., Avhad V.V., Vera R., Gross A.E., Kuzyk P.R. Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with revision total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015;39(10):1927-1932. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2957-6.
- Bozic K.J., Kurtz S.M., Lau E., Ong K., Vail T.P., Berry D.J. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128-133. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.h.00155.
- Lindahl H., Malchau H., Herberts P., Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7):857-865. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.02.001.
- Тихилов Р.М., Шубняков И.И., Коваленко А.Н., Черный А.Ж., Муравьева Ю.В., Гончаров М.Ю. Данные регистра эндопротезирования тазобедренного су-става РНИИТО им. Р. Р. Вредена за 2007-2012 годы. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2013;(3):167-190.
- Lewallen D.G., Berry D.J. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty. Treatment and results to date. J Bone Joint Surg. 1997;79A(12):1881-1890. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199712000-00014.
- Hoffmann M.F., Lotzien S., Schildhauer T.A. Outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip replacement treated with polyaxial locking plate. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;27(1):107-112. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1851-2.
- Sidler-Maier C.C., Waddell J.P. Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop. 2015;39(9):1673-1682. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2721-y.
- Ricci W.M. Periprosthetic femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(3):130-137. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000282.
- Rocca Della G.J., Leung K.S., Pape H.-C. Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:S66-70. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821b8c28.
- Parvizi J., Vegari D.N. Periprosthetic proximal femur fractures: current concepts. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;25:S77-81. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821b8c3b.
- Duncan C.P., Haddad F.S. The unified classification sys-tem (UCS): improving our understanding of peripros-thetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(6):713-716. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.96b6.34040.
- Engh C.A., Ho H., Powers C.C., Huynh C., Beykirch S.E., Hopper R.H. Osteolysis propensity among bilateral total hip arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(4): 555-561. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.014.
- Duncan C.P., Masri B.A. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293-304.
- Rayan F., Dodd M., Haddad F.S. European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(12):1576-1579. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.90b12.20681.
- Naqvi G.A., Baig S.A., Awan N. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):1047-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.11.021.
- Vioreanu M.H., Parry M.C., Haddad F.S., Duncan C.P. Field testing the unified classification system for periprosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur around a total hip replacement: an international collaboration. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B (11):1472-1477. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.96b11.34214.
- Sarvilinna R., Huhtala H.S., Sovelius R.T., Halonen P., Nevalainen J., Pajamäki K.J. Factors predisposing to periprosthetic fracture after hip arthroplasty: a case (n = 31)-control study. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75(1):16-20. doi: 10.1080/00016470410001708030.
- Lindahl H., Malchau H., Oden A., Garellick G. Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(1):26-30. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.88b1.17029.
- Хоминец В.В., Метленко П.А., Богданов А.Н., Кудяшев А.Л., Мироевский Ф.В. Ближайшие результаты лечения больных с перипротезными переломами бедренной кости после эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2015;(4):70-78.
- Yasen A.T., Haddad F.S. Periprosthetic fractures: bespoke solutions. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):48-55. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.96b11.34300.
- Korbel M., Sponer P., Kucera T., Procházka E., Procek T. Results of treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 2013;56(2):67-72. doi: 10.14712/18059694.2014.26.
- Holley K., Zelken J., Padgett D., Chimento G., Yun A., Buly R. Periprosthetic Fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 99 patients. HSS J. 2007;3(2):190-197. doi: 10.1007/s11420-007-9045-4.
- Fink B. Revision arthroplasty in periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2014;26(5):455-468. doi: 10.1007/s00064-014-0305-4.
- Kim Y., Tanaka C., Tada H., Kanoe H., Shirai T. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after femoral revision using a long stem. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:113. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0565-7.
- Корыткин А.А., Смирнов А.А., Захарова Д.В., Новикова Я.С., Ковалдов К.А., Эль Мудни Ю.М. Опыт использования аппаратов внешней фиксации в условиях ригидных деформаций тазобедренного сустава на этапе предоперационной подготовки и планирования сложных случаев первичного и ревизионного эндопротезирования. Гений ортопедии. 2018;24(1):18-23. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2018-24-1-18-23.
Supplementary files
