Advertisement

Der Unfallchirurg

, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp 195–202 | Cite as

Ergebnisse und Komplikationen der Behandlung periprothetischer Femurfrakturen mit einem winkelstabilen Plattensystem

  • J. Pressmar
  • F. Macholz
  • W. Merkert
  • F. Gebhard
  • U.C. LienerEmail author
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Behandlung periprothetischer Femurfrakturen (PPF) ist mit einer erheblichen Komplikationsrate behaftet. Im Vergleich zu konventionellen Implantaten erlauben winkelstabile Plattensysteme eine stabile Fixation bei geringer Kompromittierung der Blutversorgung. Ziel war die Evaluation der Behandlungsergebnisse mit einem winkelstabilen Plattensystem (NCB-DF®).

Patienten und Methoden

Eingeschlossen wurden 31 Patienten (mittleres Alter 76 Jahre, 24 Frauen, 7 Männer) mit Femurfrakturen bei nicht gelockerter Hüft- (n=19) oder Knieprothese (n=12).

Ergebnisse

Es wurden 11 revisionsbedürftige Komplikationen beobachtet: 6 Implantatversagen (2 Patienten mit H-TEP, 4 Patienten mit K-TEP), 4 Hämatome, ein Infekt; 2 Patienten verstarben während des stationären Aufenthalts. Zum Zeitpunkt der Nachuntersuchung bestand eine feste Fusion bei allen Patienten, ein sekundärer Korrekturverlust wurde bei einem Patienten beobachtet.

Schlussfolgerung

Die NCB-DF®-Platte ist ein geeignetes Implantat für die Versorgung von PPF bei liegender Hüftprothese, problematisch erscheint jedoch die Rate an Implantatversagern bei liegender Knieprothese.

Schlüsselwörter

Periprothetische Femurfraktur Knieprothese Hüftprothese Winkelstabile Plattenosteosynthese 

Results and complications in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with a locked plate system

Abstract

Background

Locked plate devices offer advantages in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures associated with fixed total hip or total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early results and complications with a locked plate system (NCB-DF®).

Patients and methods

A total of 31 patients (mean age 76 years, 7 males, 24 females) with a femur fracture above a fixed total knee arthroplasty (TKA, n=12) or a total hip arthroplasty (THA, n=19) were treated with a locked plate.

Results

There were 11 complications necessitating revision: 6 implant failures, 2 in patients with a THA and 4 in patients with a TKA, 4 hematomas and 1 infection and 2 patients died. After 6 months all fractures had healed securely but a secondary correction was necessary in one patient.

Conclusion

Fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures with a locked plate system provided satisfactory results in patients with a THA, however, the relatively high implant failure rate in fractures above a stable TKA is a cause for concern.

Keywords

Periprosthetic femur fractures Total knee arthroplasty Total hip arthroplasty Locked plating 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Althausen PL, Lee MA, Finkenmeier CG et al (2003) Operative stabilization of supracondylar femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty: a comparision of four treatment methods. J Arthroplasty 18:834–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: an analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 327:238–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ (1999) Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 30:183–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bong MR, Egol KA, Koval KJ et al (2002) Comparison of the LISS and a retrograde-inserted supracondylar intramedullary nail for fixation of a periprosthetic distal femur fracture proximal to a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:876–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1999) Classification of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 30:215–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cain PR, Rubash HE, Wissinger HA, McClain EJ (1986) Periprosthetic femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 208:205–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chmell MJ, Moran MC, Scott RD (1996) Periarticular fractures after total knee arthroplasty: principles of management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 4:109–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Culp RW, Schmidt RG, Hanks G et al (1987) Supracondylar fracture of the femur following prosthetic knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 222:210–222Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davison BL (2003) Varus collaps of comminuteddistal femru fractures after open reduction and internal fixation with a lateral condylar buttress plate. 32:27–30Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figgie MP, Goldberg VM, Figgie HE 3rd, Sobel M (1990) The results of the treatment of supracondylar fracture above total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5:267–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fulkerson E, Tejwani N, Stuchin S, Egol K (2007) Management of periprosthetic femur fractures with a first generation locking plate. Injury 38:965–972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardner MJ, Helfet DL, Lorich DG (2004) Has locked plating completely replaced conventional plating? Am J Orthop 33:439–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greidanus NV, Mitchell PA, Masri BA et al (2003) Principles of management and results of the treating the fractured femur during and after total hip arthroplasty. Inst Course Lect 52:309–322Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haidukewych GJ (2004) Innovations in locking plate technology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12:205–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelley SS (1994) Periprosthetic femur fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2:164–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Learmonth ID (2004) The management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 86:13–19Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maniar RN, Umlas ME, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (1996) Supracondylar femoral fracture above a PFC posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arhtroplasty treated with supracondylar nailing. A unique technical problem. J Arthroplasty 11:637–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:80–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLauchlan GJ, Robinson CM, Singer BR, Christie J (1997) Results of an operative policy in the treatement of periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma 11:170–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Merkel KD, Johnson EW Jr (1986) Supracondylar fracture of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 68:29–43Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Toole RV, Gobezie R, Hwang R et al (2006) Low complication rate of LISS for femur fractures adjacent to stable hip or knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ricci WM, Loftus T, Cox C, Borrelli J (2006) Locked plates combined with minimally invasive insertion technique for the treatement of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 20:190–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW (1999) Classification of the periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 30:209–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW (1999) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 30:265–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmidt AH, Kyle RF (2002) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. Orthop Clin North Am 33:143–152, ixCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schütz M, Müller M, Krettek C et al (2001) Minimal invasive fracture stabilization of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: a prospective multicenter study. Results of a clinical study with spezial emphasis on difficult cases. Injury 32 [suppl 3]:SC48–SC54Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Su ET, DeVal H, DiCesare PE (2004) Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee arthroplasties. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12:12–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tower SS, Beals RK (1999) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement: the Oregon experience. Orthop Clin North Am 30:235–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venu KM, Koka R, Garikipati R et al (2001) Dall-Miles cable and plate fixation for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: analysis of the results in 13 cases. Injury 32:395–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Pressmar
    • 1
  • F. Macholz
    • 1
  • W. Merkert
    • 1
  • F. Gebhard
    • 1
  • U.C. Liener
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Zentrum für ChirurgieUniversitätsklinikum UlmUlmDeutschland

Personalised recommendations