» Articles » PMID: 23801040

Minimally Invasive Periprosthetic Plate Osteosynthesis Using the Locking Attachment Plate

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2013 Jun 27
PMID 23801040
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Stable fixation of periprosthetic or periimplant fractures with an angular stable plate and early weight bearing as tolerated.

Indications: Periprosthetic femur fractures around the hip, Vancouver type B1 or C. Periprosthetic femur and tibia fractures around the knee. Periprosthetic fractures of the humerus. Periimplant fractures after intramedullary nailing.

Contraindications: Loosening of prosthesis. Local infection. Osteitis.

Surgical Technique: Preoperative planning is recommended. After minimally invasive fracture reduction and preliminary fixation, submuscular insertion of a large fragment femoral titanium plate or a distal femur plate. The plate is fixed with locking head screws and/or regular cortical screws where possible. If stability is insufficient, one or two locking attachment plates (LAP) are mounted to the femoral plate around the stem of the prosthesis. After fixing the LAP to one of the locking holes of the femoral plate, 3.5 mm screws are used to connect the LAP to the cortical bone and/or cement mantle of the prosthesis.

Postoperative Management: Weight bearing as tolerated starting on postoperative day 1 is suggested under supervision of a physiotherapist.

Results: In 6 patients with periprosthetic fractures and 2 patients with periimplant fractures, no surgical complications (e.g., wound infection or bleeding) were observed. The mean time to bony union was 14 weeks. No implant loosening of the locking attachment plate was observed. At the follow-up examination, all patients had reached their prefracture mobility level.

Citing Articles

Long locking plate combined with locking attachment plate in patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture around ipsilateral stem after total knee arthroplasty.

Shon O, Cho S, Kim G BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):594.

PMID: 37475013 PMC: 10357702. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06726-x.


A new classification of TKA periprosthetic femur fractures considering the implant type.

Fakler J, Ponick C, Edel M, Mobius R, Brand A, Roth A BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1):490.

PMID: 29178860 PMC: 5702181. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1855-z.


[Proximal femoral fractures in the elderly].

Neuerburg C, Gosch M, Bocker W, Blauth M, Kammerlander C Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2015; 48(7):647-59.

PMID: 26286076 DOI: 10.1007/s00391-015-0939-3.


Minimally invasive surgery with locking plate for periprosthetic femoral fractures: technical note.

Ehlinger M, Scheibling B, Rahme M, Brinkert D, Schenck B, Di Marco A Int Orthop. 2015; 39(10):1921-6.

PMID: 26253358 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2928-y.


Biomechanical comparison of two angular stable plate constructions for periprosthetic femur fracture fixation.

Wahnert D, Schroder R, Schulze M, Westerhoff P, Raschke M, Stange R Int Orthop. 2013; 38(1):47-53.

PMID: 24114243 PMC: 3890125. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2113-0.

References
1.
Masri B, Meek R, Duncan C . Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (420):80-95. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200403000-00012. View

2.
Pike J, Davidson D, Garbuz D, Duncan C, OBrien P, Masri B . Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17(11):677-88. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200911000-00002. View

3.
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. 2005; 88(1):26-30. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.17029. View

4.
Duncan C, Masri B . Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect. 1995; 44:293-304. 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