Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rehabilitation nach periprothetischen Frakturen

Rehabilitation after periprosthetic fractures

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Unfallchirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die periprothetische Fraktur sowohl an der oberen als auch unteren Extremität stellt nicht nur eine besondere Herausforderung für den Operateur, sondern auch für das Rehabilitationsteam dar. Die oft mehrfach operierten und z. T. multimorbiden Patienten bedürfen einer besonderen Planung und Zusammenarbeit zwischen den verschiedenen Berufsgruppen, um die optimale Versorgung mit dem bestmöglichen funktionellen Ergebnis und sozialer Reintegration zu erreichen. Eine strukturelle und durchdachte Rehabilitationsplanung ist nach erfolgreicher operativer Versorgung die Grundvoraussetzung für die Rückkehr der Patientinnen und Patienten in ein möglichst normales Leben. Ziele sind stets die rasche Mobilisierung und Sturzprophylaxe und somit das Erreichen der Patientenselbstständigkeit im Alltag. Hierbei ist v. a. die häufig postoperativ bestehende End- bzw. Teilbelastung zu beachten.

Abstract

Periprosthetic fractures of the upper and lower extremities not only represent a challenge for surgeons but also for the rehabilitation team. The sometimes multimorbid patients have often undergone several surgical operations and need special planning and cooperation between an interdisciplinary team in order to achieve the best possible functional result and social reintegration. A structured rehabilitation planning after surgical treatment is a prerequisite for the patient to return to life as normal as possible. The aim is always rapid mobilization to achieve independence in activities of daily living. Special attention should be paid to postoperative immobilization and weight bearing.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8

Abbreviations

ADL:

„Activities of daily living“

AHB:

Anschlussheilbehandlung

CPM:

„Continuous passive motion“

ETEP:

Ellenbogentotalendoprothese

FIM:

„Functional independence measure“, funktionaler Selbstständigkeitsindex

HTEP:

Hüfttotalendoprothese

ICF:

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

KTEP:

Knietotalendoprothese

NMES:

„Neuromuscular electrical stimulation“

OSG:

Oberes Sprunggelenk

PNF:

Propriozeptive neuromuskuläre Fazilitation

p.o.:

Postoperativ

SCT:

„Stair climb test“

STEP:

Schultertotalendoprothese

TEP:

Totalendoprothese

TUG:

„Time up and go“

USG:

Unteres Sprunggelenk

Literatur

  1. WHO (1981) Disability, prevention and rehabilitation, Bd 668. Technical Report, Genf

  2. Rauch A, Cieza A, Stucki G (2008) How to apply the international classification of functioning, disability and health for rehabilitation management in clinical practice. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 44(3):329–342

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. WHO (2005) ICF – Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit. DIMDI, Genf

    Google Scholar 

  4. WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva

  5. Pürner F (2010) Eine retrospektive Studie zur Behandlung von periprothetischen Frakturen. Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik-Großhadern, München

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schulz RJ, Kurtal H, Steinhagen-Thiessen E (2008) Rehabilitative Versorgung alter Menschen. In: Schaeffer D, Kuhlmey A (Hrsg) Handbuch Gesundheit und Krankheit im Alter. Hans Huber, Bern, S 1–21

  7. McGraw K (2010) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. Traumatol J Orthop 10:135–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buecking B, Bliemel C, Ruchholtz S (2013) Periprothetische Femurfrakturen – Inzidenz, Risikofaktoren, Klassifikation und Therapiestrategien. OUP (Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag) 2, Nr. 5. S 259–267

  9. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 20:857–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bachmann S, Finger C, Huss A, Egger M, Stuck AE, Clough-Gorr KM (2010) Impatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 340:c1718

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chudyk AM, Jutau JW, Petrella RJ, Speechley M (2009) Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:246–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wells JL, Seabrook JA, Stolee P, Borrie MJ, Knoefel F (2003) State of the art in geriatric rehabilitation. Part II: clinical challenges. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:898–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berry DJ (1999) Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 30:183–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kavangh BF (1992) Femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 23: 249–257

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzgerald RH, Brindley GW, Kavanagh BF (1989) The uncemented total hip arthroplasty: intraoperative femoral fractures. Clin Orthop (235):61–66

  16. Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res (327):238–246

  17. Gruner A, Hockertz T, Reilmann H (2004) Die periprothetische Fraktur. Unfallchirurg 107:35–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ohly NE, Whitehouse MR, Duncan CP (2014) Periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 24:556–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Toogood PA, Vail TP (2015) Periprosthetic fractures: a common problem with a disproportionately high impact on healthcare recources. J Arthroplasty 30(10):1688–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Della Rocca GJ, Leung KS, Pape HC (2011) Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma 25:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Diehl P, Burgkart R, Klier T, Glowalla G, Gollwitzer H (2006) Periprothetische Frakturen nach Knietotalendoprothetik. Orthopäde 35:961–974

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cameron B, Iannotti JP (1999) Periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and scapula: management and prevention. Orthop Clin North Am 30:305–318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Großstück R, Mennenga U, Deml O, Hofmann GO (2014) Periprothetische Frakturen bei Schulter- und Ellenbogengelenkprothesen. Trazma Berufskrankh 16:354–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Trapp OM, Bühren V (2011) Implantatassoziierte Frakturen. Trauma Berufskrankh 13:133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Worland RL, Kim DY, Arredondo J (1999) Periprosthetic humeral fractures: management and classification. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8:590–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanchez-Sotelo J, O’Driscoll S, Morrey BF (2002) Periprosthetic humeral fractures after total elbow arthroplasty; treatment with implant revision and strut allograft augmentation. J Bone Joint Surg 84:1642–1650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heinonen M, Karppi P, Huusko T, Kautiainen H, Sulkava R (2004) Post-operative degree of mobilization at two weeks predicts one-year mortality after hip fracture. Aging Clin Exp Res 16:476–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pioli G, Barone A, Giusti A, Oliveri M, Pizzonia M, Razzano M, Palummeri E (2005) Predictors of mortality after hip fracture: results from 1-year follow-up. Aging Clin Ex Res 18:381–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Raiss P, Rettig O, Wolf S, Loew M, Kasten P (2007) Das Bewegungsausmaß der Schulter und des Ellenbogens bei Alltagsbewegungen in der 3D-Bewegungsanalyse. Z Orthop Unfall 145:493–498

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Morrey BF, Askew LJ, Chao EY (1981) A biomechanical study of normal functional elbow motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:872–877

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Imhoff A, Beitzel K, Stamer K, Klein E (Hrsg) (2015) Rehabilitation in der Orthopädischen Chirurgie, 2. Aufl. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  32. McDermid JC, Vincent JI, Kieffer L, Demaiter J, McIntosh S (2012) A survey of practice patterns for rehabilitation post elbow fracture. Open Orthop J 6:429–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Perry J, Burnfield J (2010) Gait analysis – normal and pathological function. Slack Incorporated, Thorofare, S 55, 86, 104

    Google Scholar 

  34. Joshi J, Kotwal P (2008) Essentials of orthopaedics and applied physiotherapy. Elsevier, India, S 165–179

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ruchholtz S, Tomás J, Gebhard F, Larsen MS (2013) Periprosthetic fractures around the knee – the best way of treatment. Eur Orthop Traumatol 4:93–102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Pozzi F, Snyder-Mackler L, Zeni J (2013) Physical exercise after knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of controlles trials. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 49:877–892

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Petterson SC, Mizner RL, Stevens JE, Raisis L, Bodenstab A, Newcomb W, Snyder-Mackler L (2009) Improved function from progressive strengthening interventions after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial with imbedded prospective cohort. Arthritis Rheum 61:174–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jones GR, Miller TA, Petrella RJ (2002) Evaluation of rehabilitation outcomes in older patients with hip fracture. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81:489–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Di Monaco M, Castiglioni C (2013) Which type of exercise therapy is effective after hip arthroplasty? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 49:893–907

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Atkinson K, Coutts F, Hassenkamp AM (2005) Physiotherapy in orthopedics – a problem-solving approach. Elsevier Health Sciences, London, S 245–246

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Medical Park Chiemsee, Birkenallee 41, 83233, Bernau-Felden, Deutschland

    M. Schmitt-Sody & C. Valle

  2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Physikalische Medizin und Rehabilitation, Klinikum der Universität München, Campus Großhadern, München, Deutschland

    M. Schmitt-Sody

Authors
  1. M. Schmitt-Sody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Valle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Schmitt-Sody.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Schmitt-Sody und C. Valle geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Alle Patienten, die über Bildmaterial oder anderweitige Angaben innerhalb des Manuskripts zu identifizieren sind, haben hierzu ihre schriftliche Einwilligung gegeben.

Additional information

Redaktion

P. Biberthaler, München

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmitt-Sody, M., Valle, C. Rehabilitation nach periprothetischen Frakturen. Unfallchirurg 119, 194–201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-016-0146-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-016-0146-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation