» Articles » PMID: 19513712

Management of Late Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: a Retrospective Cohort of 72 Patients

Overview
Journal Int Orthop
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2009 Jun 11
PMID 19513712
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We present our series of 72 patients with periprosthetic fractures. The Vancouver classification was used to evaluate the fractures; there was one type A, seven type B1, 42 type B2, 17 type B3 and five type C fractures. Demographics, pre and postoperative data using Charnley-D'Aubigne-Postel score for assessment of function were recorded. The mean follow-up for all patients was two years. The overall outcome of treatment was graded as excellent, good or poor. An excellent result indicated that the arthroplasty was stable with minimal deformity and no shortening. Stable subsidence of the prosthesis or when the fracture healed with moderate deformity or shortening was deemed as a good result. A loose prosthesis, nonunion, sepsis, severe deformity or shortening was considered poor. In our series 79% (n = 57) had good or excellent results following surgical intervention and 21% (n = 15) had complications; they all had undergone re-operation for various reasons such as nonunion, loosening, dislocation or infection. In B2 fractures the stem is unstable and hence revision of the prosthetic stem has been recommended with or without additional fixation. For B3 fractures an allograft prosthesis composite or tumour prosthesis is considered the treatment choice.

Citing Articles

Pilot study on the feasibility of shape memory alloy implantation for Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures in a canine model: a step toward advancing treatment modalities.

Kim H, Kang K, Chekalkin T, Park J, Chung H, Kang B J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):510.

PMID: 39192290 PMC: 11348569. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05011-4.


.

Demnati B, Boumediane E, Idarrha F, Dkhissi S, Benhima M, Abkari I Tunis Med. 2024; 102(6):354-359.

PMID: 38864199 PMC: 11358790. DOI: 10.62438/tunismed.v102i6.4692.


Unstable Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation: A biomechanical comparison between a novel C-shaped memory alloy implant and cerclage wiring.

Oh S, Suh Y, Eghan-Acquah E, Yurevich K, Won S, Baek M J Int Med Res. 2024; 52(3):3000605241240946.

PMID: 38534086 PMC: 10981230. DOI: 10.1177/03000605241240946.


Mid- and long-term efficacy of surgical treatment of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Sun J, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Chen X, Feng S BMC Surg. 2020; 20(1):226.

PMID: 33028289 PMC: 7539422. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-00891-9.


Midterm Results of Consecutive Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type A and B.

Trieb K, Fiala R, Briglauer C Clin Pract. 2016; 6(3):871.

PMID: 27777712 PMC: 5067404. DOI: 10.4081/cp.2016.871.


References
1.
Eingartner C, Volkmann R, Putz M, Weller S . Uncemented revision stem for biological osteosynthesis in periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 1997; 21(1):25-9. PMC: 3615689. DOI: 10.1007/s002640050112. View

2.
Franklin J, Malchau H . Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury. 2007; 38(6):655-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.049. View

3.
Lewallen D, Berry D . Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47:243-9. View

4.
Garbuz D, Masri B, Duncan C . Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47:237-42. View

5.
Lindahl H . Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2007; 38(6):651-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.048. View