» Articles » PMID: 36267221

KNEE PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES IN THE ELDERLY: CURRENT CONCEPT

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2022 Oct 21
PMID 36267221
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty in elderly represent an emerging cause of implant revision and their incidence seems destined to further increase in the upcoming years, considering the ever-increasing number of implanted prostheses. These are complex injuries with very high complication rates. It has been estimated that the incidence of femoral periprosthetic fractures after T.K.A. ranged between 0,3 to 2,5%, but increases up to 38% when considering revision T.K.A. Patient-related risk factors for T.K.A. periprosthetic fracture (T.K.A.P.F.) include osteoporosis, age, female sex, revision arthroplasty and peri-implant osteolysis. The grate debate concerns the choice of the most appropriate fixation device for T.K.A.P.F.: closed or open reduction with internal fixation with either locked plate or intramedullary nail is the most commonly used for treating these fractures. Success of these methods depends on the fracture pattern, the stability of implants, and the patient's bone quality which is often poor in elderly, thus resulting in high complication rates. Conversely, a revision of T.K.A. (R.T.K.A.) should be considered in case of prosthetic component instability, severe comminution or metaphyseal extension of the fracture (that precludes a good fixation), previous treatments failure and severe malalignment of T.K.A. Instead megaprosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite are necessary in case of sever bone loss. Considering the variability of the clinical scenario of T.K.A.P.F., this complex injury requires and experienced and comprehensive approach based on both facture fixation and/or revision arthroplasty.

Citing Articles

Predicting periprosthetic joint infection in primary total knee arthroplasty: a machine learning model integrating preoperative and perioperative risk factors.

Chong Y, Lau C, Jiang T, Wen C, Zhang J, Cheung A BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025; 26(1):241.

PMID: 40069724 PMC: 11895328. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08296-6.


Global Research Trends on Periprosthetic Fractures After Artificial Joint Replacement Between 2000 and 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualized Study.

Liang X, Zhang X, Xu Q, Zhang K, Pang R, Shi W Indian J Orthop. 2023; 57(5):703-713.

PMID: 37128556 PMC: 10147874. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-023-00863-0.

References
1.
Kilucoglu O, Akgul T, Saglam Y, Yazicioglu O . Comparison of locked plating and intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013; 79(4):417-21. View

2.
Alexander J, Morris R, Kaimrajh D, Milne E, Latta L, Flink A . Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic refractures following distal femur locking plate fixation. Injury. 2015; 46(12):2368-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.09.033. View

3.
Diehl P, Burgkart R, Klier T, Glowalla C, Gollwitzer H . [Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty]. Orthopade. 2006; 35(9):961-70, 972-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-006-0990-2. View

4.
Su E, DeWal H, Di Cesare P . Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004; 12(1):12-20. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200401000-00003. View

5.
Konan S, Sandiford N, Unno F, Masri B, Garbuz D, Duncan C . Periprosthetic fractures associated with total knee arthroplasty: an update. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(11):1489-1496. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0029.R1. View