A Systematic Review of the Surgical Outcomes of Interprosthetic Femur Fractures

Overview

Journal J Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2022 Aug 12

PMID 35958982

Authors

Brian M Rao

Phillip Stokey

Mina Tanios

Jiayong Liu

Nabil A Ebraheim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Interprosthetic femur fractures (IFFs) are rare, but the treatment is challenging. Currently, there are many treatment methods used in practice, but an updated systematic review of comparison of common different surgical outcomes has not been thoroughly inspected.

Methods: A systematic review of retrospective studies was conducted. The resource databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched using a combination of the keywords involving IFFs and surgical outcomes from inception through June 2021. Data collected included patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. Outcomes were measured based on healing time, revision rate, complication rate, and functional scores.

Results: Forty studies were included for review with a total of 508 patients. Average reported age of patients was 78.7 years old and 403 (79.3%) were females. Overall union rate was 74.0% with 376 of 508 patients achieving fracture union after primary treatment of IFF. Only 271 patients had reported healing times of fractures with a mean of 5.15 months. The plate, prosthetic revision, nail/rod, and external fixator groups had mean healing times of 4.69, 8.73, 6.5, and 5.1 months, respectively. Revision rates were highest in the femur replacement treatment group with 9 (32.1%) patients needing at least one reoperation surgery for any reason. Overall, hardware failure and non-unions were the most reported complications in treatment of IFFs. Postoperative functional outcome scores were available for 242 patients. Harris Hip Scores for the plate, revision, replacement, nail/rod, and plate + revision groups were 76.84, 77.14, 69.9, 77, and 78.4, respectively.

Conclusion: Each treatment method should be carefully considered by the surgeon depending on the patient. Locking plate was the most common method for the treatment of the patients with IFFs. Half of them combined with cerclage wires/cables. Around two thirds' patients could achieve union with the fastest mean healing time around 4.69 months. Other less common methods included prosthetic revision, femur replacement, nail/rod, external fixator, etc. A small number of patients treated with Ilizarov external fixator, and it has proven to be a viable option with few complications and high union rates.

Citing Articles

How to Manage Metallosis: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis after Revision Hip Surgery.

Bruschetta A, Palco M, Fenga D, Giuca G, Holzer L, Alito A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(14).

PMID: 37510924 PMC: 10381485. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144809.

Extracorporeal shock wave treatment for post‑surgical fracture nonunion: Insight into its mechanism, efficacy, safety and prognostic factors (Review).

Wang H, Shi Y Exp Ther Med. 2023; 26(1):332.

PMID: 37346403 PMC: 10280326. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2023.12031.

References

Sakai T, Ohzono K, Nakase T, Lee S, Manaka T, Nishihara S . Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture after cementless total hip arthroplasty with Ilizarov external fixation. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(4):617-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.08.004. View

Della Valle C, Tejwani N, Koval K . Interprosthetic fracture of the femoral shaft treated with a percutaneously inserted dynamic condylar screw: case report. J Trauma. 2003; 54(3):602-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.TA.0000046444.21003.06. View

Tibbo M, Limberg A, Gausden E, Huang P, Perry K, Yuan B . Outcomes of operatively treated interprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J. 2021; 103-B(7 Supple B):122-128. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-2275.R1. View

Dave D, Koka S, James S . Mennen plate fixation for fracture of the femoral shaft with ipsilateral total hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10(1):113-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(05)80111-1. View

Hoffmann M, Lotzien S, Schildhauer T . Clinical outcome of interprosthetic femoral fractures treated with polyaxial locking plates. Injury. 2016; 47(4):934-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.12.026. View

Muller F, Galler M, Fuchtmeier B . Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with orthogonal double plating for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(12):2469-72. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2464-1. View

Kenny P, Rice J, Quinlan W . Interprosthetic fracture of the femoral shaft. J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13(3):361-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(98)90187-5. View

Zuurmond R, Pilot P, Verburg A . Retrograde bridging nailing of periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury. 2007; 38(8):958-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.12.011. View

Duwelius P, Schmidt A, Kyle R, Talbott V, Ellis T, Butler J . A prospective, modernized treatment protocol for periprosthetic femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004; 35(4):485-92, vi. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2004.05.001. View

10.

Newman E, Hug K, Wellman S, Bolognesi M, Kelley S . Custom intramedullary intercalating device for treatment of supracondylar fracture between constrained total knee arthroplasty and well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. Knee. 2012; 21(2):594-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.11.007. View

11.

Romeo N, Firoozabadi R . Interprosthetic Fractures of the Femur. Orthopedics. 2017; 41(1):e1-e7. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20170727-01. View

12.

Beris A, Lykissas M, Sioros V, Mavrodontidis A, Korompilias A . Femoral periprosthetic fracture in osteoporotic bone after a total knee replacement: treatment with Ilizarov external fixation. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(7):1168.e9-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.10.009. View

13.

Lehmann W, Rupprecht M, Nuechtern J, Melzner D, Sellenschloh K, Kolb J . What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(12):2441-6. PMC: 3508046. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0. View

14.

Fuchtmeier B, Doblinger M, Muller F . Internal fixation and revision arthroplasty for interprosthetic femoral fractures: a case series of fifty patients. Int Orthop. 2020; 44(7):1391-1399. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04561-6. View

15.

Hurson C, Synnott K, McCormack D . Above-knee Ilizarov external fixation for early periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fracture--a case report. Knee. 2005; 12(2):145-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.005. View

16.

Pires R, Barbosa de Toledo Lourenco P, Labronici P, da Rocha L, Balbachevsky D, Cavalcante F . Interprosthetic femoral fractures: proposed new classification system and treatment algorithm. Injury. 2014; 45 Suppl 5:S2-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(14)70012-9. View

17.

Solarino G, Vicenti G, Moretti L, Abate A, Spinarelli A, Moretti B . Interprosthetic femoral fractures-A challenge of treatment. A systematic review of the literature. Injury. 2013; 45(2):362-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.09.028. View

18.

Nozaka K, Miyakoshi N, Sato T, Shimada Y . Ilizarov external fixation for a periprosthetic tibial fracture in severe osteoporosis: a case report. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21(1):145. PMC: 7057544. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-3176-x. View

19.

Ebraheim N, Carroll T, Moral M, Lea J, Hirschfeld A, Liu J . Interprosthetic femoral fractures treated with locking plate. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(10):2183-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2414-y. View

20.

Soenen M, Migaud H, Bonnomet F, Girard J, Mathevon H, Ehlinger M . Interprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of 14 cases. Proposal for an additional grade in the Vancouver and SoFCOT classifications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011; 97(7):693-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.07.009. View