Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of therapeutic outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fracture between treatments employing locking and conventional plates

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Locking plate is considered biomechanically advantageous for porotic bone, compared with conventional plate. However, clinical evaluations of locking and conventional plates for periprosthetic femoral fracture are still controversial. Thus, we investigated the usefulness of a locking plate compared with the conventional plate for treatment for this fracture.

Materials and methods

We reviewed 40 patients (40 fractures) who had undergone internal fixation for Vancouver type B1 or C periprosthetic fracture. Locking and conventional plates were applied for 21 and 19 patients, respectively.

Results

No significant difference was found between locking and conventional plate groups in Merle d’ Aubigné hip score, walking ability, operation time, and blood loss. Regarding postoperative complications, delayed union was noted in one patient in the locking plate group and subsidence of the stem in one in the conventional plate group. On the final follow-up, bone union was achieved in all patients.

Conclusion

We cannot suggest the usefulness of locking plate for periprosthetic femoral fracture. However, functional training was performed in the same rehabilitation schedule in our comparative study. Considering the angle stability of the locking plate, weight may be loaded on the locking plate, earlier than that on the conventional plate, which may be an advantage of the locking plate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Learmonth ID (2004) Aspects of current management. The management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:13–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Masri BA, Meek D, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop 420:80–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kavanagh BF (1992) Femoral fracture associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 23:249–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Greidanus NV, Mitchell PA, Masri BA et al (2003) Principle of management and results of treating the fractured femur during and after total hip arthroplasty. AAOS instructional course lecture 52:309–322

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holley K, Zelken J, Padgett D et al (2007) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 99 patients. HSS J 3:190–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gautier E, Sommer C (2003) Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 34:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wood GC, Naudie DR, Mcauley J, McCalden RW (2011) Locking compression plates for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed total hip and knee implants. J Arthroplasty 26:886–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ginger KB, Saam M, Julie AM et al (2009) Isolated locked compression plating for Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury 40:1180–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buttaro MA, Farfalli G, Paredes Núñez M et al (2007) Locking compression plate fixation of Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1964–1969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vallier HA, Hennessey TA, Sontich JK et al (2006) Failure of LCP condylar plate fixation in distal part of the femur. A report of six cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:846–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fracture of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. d’Aubigné RM, Postel M (1954) Functional result of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36:451–475

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahuja S, Chatterji S (2002) The Mennen femoral plate for fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty. Injury 33:47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Montijo H, Ebert FR, Lennox DA (1989) Treatment of proximal femur fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 4:115–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsiridis E, Haddad FS, Gie GA (2003) Dall-Miles plates for periprosthetic femoral fractures A critical review of 16 cases. Injury 34:107–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ricci WM, Bolhofner BR, Loftus T et al (2005) Indirect reduction and plate fixation, without grafting, for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures about a stable intramedullary implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2240–2245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chakravarthy J, Bansal R, Cooper J (2007) Locking plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B1 and type C periprosthetic fractures of femur: a report on 12 patients. Injury 38:725–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fulkerson E, Tejwani N, Stuchin S et al (2007) Management of periprosthetic femur fractures with a first generation locking plate. Injury 38:965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Tomonori Baba & Kazuo Kaneko

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, Chiba, Japan

    Tomonori Baba, Katsuo Shitoto, Kentaro Futamura & Yuichiro Maruyama

Authors
  1. Tomonori Baba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazuo Kaneko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katsuo Shitoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kentaro Futamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuichiro Maruyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomonori Baba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baba, T., Kaneko, K., Shitoto, K. et al. Comparison of therapeutic outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fracture between treatments employing locking and conventional plates. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23, 437–441 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1005-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1005-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation