Adequate Surgical Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Following Hip Arthroplasty Does Not Correlate with Functional Outcome and Quality of Life

Overview

Journal Int Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2015 Jan 27

PMID 25620747

Citations 15

Authors

Sven Mardian

Klaus-Dieter Schaser

Johanna Gruner

Franziska Scheel

Carsten Perka

Philipp Schwabe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to analyse functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) after surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods: This retrospective study assessed 67 patients from 2005 to 2012. Epidemiologic data, surgical details, comorbidities, deaths and postoperative complications were recorded. Functional assessment included Harris Hip Score (HHS) and range of motion (ROM); QoL was assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey of 36 questions (SF-36) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores.

Results: Mean HHS was 69 ± 21 and ROM 96° ± 17°. Mean SF-36 and WOMAC scores revealed 44 ± 7.2 and 18.9 ± 19.6, respectively. The complication rate was 25.4%; 23.7% of patients died. Analysis revealed no statistical influence on final outcome as a function of fracture type or treatment strategy. Comorbidities seem to influence functional outcome.

Conclusion: PPF following THA are accompanied by a perceptible decline of function and remarkably high complication rates. In contrast to fracture classification and treatment type, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score predicts outcome.

Citing Articles

Risk factors for mortality in periprosthetic femur fractures about the hip-a retrospective analysis.

Muller K, Zeynalova S, Fakler J, Kleber C, Roth A, Osterhoff G Int Orthop. 2024; 49(1):211-217.

PMID: 39387883 PMC: 11703947. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-024-06346-7.

The Effect of Periprosthetic Fractures Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty on Long-Term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life.

Luzzi A, Lakra A, Murtaugh T, Shah R, Cooper H, Geller J Arthroplast Today. 2024; 29:101418.

PMID: 39228909 PMC: 11369410. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101418.

Revision total hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic fracture: epidemiology, outcomes, and factors associated with success.

Morgan S, Bourget-Murray J, Garceau S, Grammatopoulos G Ann Jt. 2024; 8:30.

PMID: 38529253 PMC: 10929400. DOI: 10.21037/aoj-23-16.

[Concept for the treatment of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures].

Jaecker V, Hahn F, Steinmeier A, Stockle U, Mardian S Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb). 2024; 127(5):349-355.

PMID: 38180491 DOI: 10.1007/s00113-023-01405-x.

Evaluating the Functional and Psychological Outcomes Following Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Islam R, Lanting B, Somerville L, Hunter S Arthroplast Today. 2022; 18:57-62.

PMID: 36262668 PMC: 9574344. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.08.012.

References

Holder N, Papp S, Gofton W, Beaule P . Outcomes following surgical treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures: a single centre series. Can J Surg. 2014; 57(3):209-13. PMC: 4035404. DOI: 10.1503/cjs.014813. View

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

Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Bohler N, Labek G . Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(8):1329-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.012. View

Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G . Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(7):857-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.02.001. View

Charlson M, Szatrowski T, Peterson J, Gold J . Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994; 47(11):1245-51. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90129-5. View

Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel B, Tyndall A, Dick W . [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index]. Z Rheumatol. 1996; 55(1):40-9. View

Singh J, Jensen M, Harmsen S, Lewallen D . Are gender, comorbidity, and obesity risk factors for postoperative periprosthetic fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 28(1):126-31.e1-2. PMC: 3414633. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.010. View

Beals R, TOWER S . Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; (327):238-46. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199606000-00029. View

Parvizi J, Rapuri V, Purtill J, Sharkey P, Rothman R, Hozack W . Treatment protocol for proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 86-A Suppl 2:8-16. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200412002-00003. View

10.

Young S, Pandit S, Munro J, Pitto R . Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. ANZ J Surg. 2007; 77(6):424-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04087.x. View

11.

Zampelis V, Ornstein E, Franzen H, Atroshi I . A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2014; 85(2):128-32. PMC: 3967253. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2014.887951. View

12.

Duncan C, Haddad F . The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B(6):713-6. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.34040. View

13.

Kurth B, Ellert U . The SF-36 questionnaire and its usefulness in population studies: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998. Soz Praventivmed. 2002; 47(4):266-77. DOI: 10.1007/BF01326408. View

14.

Moreta J, Aguirre U, de Ugarte O, Jauregui I, Martinez-de Los Mozos J . Functional and radiological outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2014; 46(2):292-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.07.013. View

15.

Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H, Herberts P, Malchau H . Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1215-22. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00457. View

16.

Zuurmond R, VAN Wijhe W, van Raay J, Bulstra S . High incidence of complications and poor clinical outcome in the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: An analysis of 71 cases. Injury. 2010; 41(6):629-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.01.102. View

17.

Beaulieu M, Lamontagne M, Beaule P . Lower limb biomechanics during gait do not return to normal following total hip arthroplasty. Gait Posture. 2010; 32(2):269-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.05.007. View

18.

Parvizi J, Vegari D . Periprosthetic proximal femur fractures: current concepts. J Orthop Trauma. 2011; 25 Suppl 2:S77-81. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821b8c3b. View

19.

Harris W . Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969; 51(4):737-55. View

20.

Mariconda M, Galasso O, Costa G, Recano P, Cerbasi S . Quality of life and functionality after total hip arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12:222. PMC: 3204273. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-222. View