Interprosthetic Fracture Fixation: Achieving Stability and Union

  • Donald M. Adams
  • Robinson Pires
  • Richard S. Yoon
  • Frank A. Liporace


Due to the rising average age, coupled with advances in medicine and orthopedic implants, larger numbers of prosthetic joint replacements are taking place than ever before. Increased life expectancy combined with a growing younger cohort of patients receiving joint replacements is likely to dramatically increase the number of patients sustaining interprosthetic, interimplant, or peri-implant fractures. In this chapter, the authors outline the principles, strategies, and techniques to obtain successful goals of reconstruction and maximizing function. The techniques discussed include both the realms of fixation and arthroplasty, as well as discussing the future possibilities for innovation in treating this unique but increasingly common clinical scenario.


Interprosthetic fracture Peri-implant fracture Interimplant fracture Linked fixation Linkage systems Adjunct permanent plate fixation (APPF) Nail-plate combo fixation (NPC) Interlocking fixation Sub-prosthetic 


  1. 1.
    Colby SL OJ: Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060: population Estimates and Projections, in, ed 2015. Washington D.C.: Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015, pp 25–1143.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brand S, Klotz J, Hassel T, et al. Intraprosthetic screw fixation increases primary fixation stability in periprosthetic fractures of the femur – a biomechanical study. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36:239–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brand S, Klotz J, Hassel T, et al. Intraprosthetic fixation techniques in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures-a biomechanical study. World J Orthop. 2012;3:162–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sidler-Maier CC, Waddell JP. Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop. 2015;39:1673–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H, Herberts P, Malchau H. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lunebourg A, Mouhsine E, Cherix S, Ollivier M, Chevalley F, Wettstein M. Treatment of type B periprosthetic femur fractures with curved non-locking plate with eccentric holes: retrospective study of 43 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101:277–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kubiak EN, Haller JM, Kemper DD, Presson AP, Higgins TF, Horwitz DS. Does the lateral plate need to overlap the stem to mitigate stress concentration when treating Vancouver C periprosthetic supracondylar femur fracture? J Arthroplast. 2015;30:104–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mamczak CN, Gardner MJ, Bolhofner B, Borrelli J Jr, Streubel PN, Ricci WM. Interprosthetic femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:740–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moloney GB, Westrick ER, Siska PA, Tarkin IS. Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a well-fixed hip arthroplasty implant: span the whole bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kenny P, Rice J, Quinlan W. Interprosthetic fracture of the femoral shaft. J Arthroplast. 1998;13:361–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O'Toole RV, Gobezie R, Hwang R, et al. Low complication rate of LISS for femur fractures adjacent to stable hip or knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;450:203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ricci WM, Loftus T, Cox C, Borrelli J. Locked plates combined with minimally invasive insertion technique for the treatment of periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures above a total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:190–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pires RE, de Toledo Lourenco PR, Labronici PJ, et al. Interprosthetic femoral fractures: proposed new classification system and treatment algorithm. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 5):S2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beals RK, Tower SS. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;327:238–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iesaka K, Kummer FJ, Di Cesare PE. Stress risers between two ipsilateral intramedullary stems: a finite-element and biomechanical analysis. J Arthroplast. 2005;20:386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larson JE, Chao EY, Fitzgerald RH. Bypassing femoral cortical defects with cemented intramedullary stems. J Orthop Res. 1991;9:414–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lehmann W, Rupprecht M, Nuechtern J, et al. What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. Int Orthop. 2012;36:2441–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grosso MJ, Lipman J, Bostrom MP. Coupling device and distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures with an ipsilateral total knee and hip replacement. HSS J. 2014;10:68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newman ET, Hug KT, Wellman SS, Bolognesi MP, Kelley SS. Custom intramedullary intercalating device for treatment of supracondylar fracture between constrained total knee arthroplasty and well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. Knee. 2014;21:594–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lachiewicz PF. Periprosthetic fracture between a constrained total knee arthroplasty and a long-stem total hip arthroplasty: treatment with a novel device. J Arthroplast. 2007;22:449–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tillman R, Kalra S, Grimer R, Carter S, Abudu A. A custom-made prosthesis attached to an existing femoral component for the treatment of peri- and sub-prosthetic fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi JK, Gardner TR, Yoon E, Morrison TA, Macaulay WB, Geller JA. The effect of fixation technique on the stiffness of comminuted Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures. J Arthroplast. 2010;25:124–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dennis MG, Simon JA, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, DiCesare PE. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques. J Arthroplast. 2000;15:523–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muller FJ, Galler M, Fuchtmeier B. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with orthogonal double plating for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop. 2014;38:2469–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Auston DA, Werner FW, Simpson RB. Orthogonal femoral plating: a biomechanical study with implications for interprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint Res. 2015;4:23–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bryant GK, Morshed S, Agel J, et al. Isolated locked compression plating for Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury. 2009;40:1180–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald M. Adams
    • 1
  • Robinson Pires
    • 2
    • 3
  • Richard S. Yoon
    • 1
  • Frank A. Liporace
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Orthopedic Trauma and Adult ReconstructionJersey City Medical Center – RWJBarnabas HealthJersey CityUSA
  2. 2.Federal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic Trauma Surgery, Felicio Rocho HospitalBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations