[Periprosthetic Fractures of the Acetabulum and Femur : Causes-classification-treatment Algorithms]

Overview

Journal Orthopade

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2019 Mar 2

PMID 30820591

Authors

D M Ates

P Koenen

R Otchwemah

H Bathis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Both increasing implantation numbers of total hip replacements and demographic change with higher populations of older people, indicate that there will be an increase in periprosthetic fractures in the future.

Causes: Falls in the home environment are the most common cause. Significant co-factors include reduced patient coordination, reduced bone quality, or implant-associated factors such as local osteolysis or pre-existing implant loosening.

Classification: In the classification of periprosthetic fractures of the femur, the Vancouver classification has prevailed in recent years, which in addition to a description of the localization of the fracture also considers the stability of the prosthesis and bone quality. Based on this, therapeutic algorithms have been developed that can vary from the conservative approach via osteosynthetic options to a replacement of the prosthesis. In order to allow the description of periprosthetic fractures on all joints, the Vancouver classification has been extended to the UCS classification by including the AO/OTA bone and joint coding system. In the selection of the treatment method, the consideration of individual patient factors such as activity level and secondary diagnoses is essential. Based on the established classifications, the importance of the different therapeutic methods is presented.

References

Brady O, Garbuz D, Masri B, Duncan C . The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15(1):59-62. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(00)91181-1. View

Malkani A, Paiso J, Sim F . Proximal femoral replacement with megaprosthesis. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:141-6. View

Dennis M, Simon J, Kummer F, Koval K, DiCesare P . Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15(4):523-8. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2000.4339. View

Pritchett J . Fracture of the greater trochanter after hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (390):221-6. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200109000-00025. View

Della Valle C, Momberger N, Paprosky W . Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum associated with a total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2003; 52:281-90. View

Schuh A, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G . [Titanium modular revision prosthesis stem in revision hip prosthesis]. Orthopade. 2004; 33(1):63-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-003-0543-x. View

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

Agarwal S, Andrews C, Bakeer G . Outcome following stabilization of type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(1):118-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.03.021. 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.

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

11.

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

12.

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

13.

Haidukewych G, Jacofsky D, Hanssen A, Lewallen D . Intraoperative fractures of the acetabulum during primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(9):1952-6. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00890. View

14.

Ninan T, Costa M, Krikler S . Classification of femoral periprosthetic fractures. Injury. 2007; 38(6):661-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.053. View

15.

Harris B, Owen J, Wayne J, Jiranek W . Does femoral component loosening predispose to femoral fracture?: an in vitro comparison of cemented hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 468(2):497-503. PMC: 2806997. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1034-0. 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.

Della Rocca G, Leung K, Pape H . Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma. 2011; 25 Suppl 2:S66-70. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821b8c28. View

18.

Wahnert D, Lenz M, Schlegel U, Perren S, Windolf M . Cerclage handling for improved fracture treatment. A biomechanical study on the twisting procedure. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2011; 78(3):208-14. View

19.

McLean A, Patton J, Moran M . Femoral replacement for salvage of periprosthetic fracture around a total hip replacement. Injury. 2012; 43(7):1166-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.03.024. View

20.

Brun O, Maansson L . Fractures of the greater trochanter following total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2013; 23(2):143-6. PMC: 6161561. DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2013.10813. View