Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a well-fixed hip arthroplasty implant: span the whole bone
- 1.1k Downloads
Periprosthetic femur fractures are a growing problem in the geriatric population. This study examines Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation using a laterally based plate. Outcomes using plates which spanned the length of the femur to the level of the femoral condyles were compared to those which did not. The hypothesis was that spanning internal fixation would result in a decreased rate of refracture and subsequent reoperation.
Materials and methods
Patients admitted to three affiliated academic hospitals treated with open reduction internal fixation for a periprosthetic femur fracture in the setting of a preexisting total hip arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty stem were identified. Patient data were reviewed for age, gender, fracture classification, operative intervention, time to union, as well as complications related to treatment and need for further surgery.
Over a 5-year period, 58 patients were treated with open reduction internal fixation using a laterally based plate for Vancouver B1 femur fractures. Twenty-one patients were treated with plates that extended to the level of the femoral condyles. In that group there were no nonunions or subsequent periprosthetic fractures reported. Of 36 patients treated with short plates, 3 went on to nonunion resulting in plate failure and refracture and 2 sustained a subsequent fracture distal to the existing fixation.
In this series, fixation for periprosthetic femur fractures around a well-fixed arthroplasty stem which spans the length of the femur to the level of the femoral condyles is associated with a decreased rate of nonunion and refracture. By decreasing the rate of refracture and nonunion, spanning fixation decreases the morbidity and mortality associated with additional surgery in a fragile geriatric population.
KeywordsGeriatric hip fracture Periprosthetic femur fracture
Conflict of interest
- 3.Kavanagh BF (1992) Femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 23(2):249–257Google Scholar
- 5.Ricci WM, Haidukewych GJ (2010) Periprosthetic fractures, in rockwood and green’s fractures in adults. In: Heckman JD, Bucholz RW, Court-Brown CM, Tornetta P (eds) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 7ed. p 555–589Google Scholar
- 6.Xue H et al (2011) Locking compression plate and cerclage band for type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures preliminary results at average 30-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 26(3):467–471 e1Google Scholar
- 9.Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res (327):238–46Google Scholar
- 10.Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM, Malchau H (2007) Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:2658–2652Google Scholar
- 11.Lindahl H, Malchau H, Oden A, Garellick G (2006) Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88B:26–30Google Scholar
- 12.Wood GC et al (2010) Locking compression plates for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed total hip and knee implants. J Arthroplast 26(6):886–892Google Scholar
- 14.Bryant GK, Morshed S, Agel J, Henley MB, Barei DP, Taitsman LA, Nork SE (2009) Isolated locked compression plating for Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 40:1180–1186Google Scholar
- 16.Uzoigwe CE, Burnand HG, Cheesman CL, Aghedo DO, Faizi M, Middleton RG (2012) Early and ultra-early surgery in hip fracture patients improves survival. Injury 44(6):726–729Google Scholar