Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty

Due to rapidly increasing numbers of arthroplasty surgeries of the upper extremity, periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, formerly described as rare, may hence increase in the near future. Therefore the aim of the present work was to give an overview of the existing literature including possible classifications as well as an update on treatment concepts and experiences with own cases. After a literature research have been done, existing prevalence, classifications and treatment options, mostly described in case series, were processed to create an overview of the existing state of knowledge. Additionally 7 own cases are described in detail to show the different treatment options used at the authors department. The currently used classification systems take fracture location, angulation and rotation and fixation of the implant into account. Possible solutions for periposthetic fractures of the humerus include conservative management, open reduction and internal fixation for stable prosthesis and long stemmed implants for lose implants as well as the use of additional allo- or autogeneous bone grafting and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in revision cases with rotator cuff dysfunction. After all treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder and elbow arthroplasty remain a challenging problem.     

Proximal ulnar reconstruction with strut allograft in revision total elbow arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: The growing frequency of joint arthroplasty has led to increasing numbers of patients requiring revision surgery. In the treatment of a failed total elbow arthroplasty not associated with infection, one of the main issues is poor or absent proximal ulnar bone stock due to osteolysis. We report our experience with the use of strut allograft reconstruction of the proximal part of the ulna as an adjunct to revision total elbow arthroplasty with a noncustom implant. Our aim was to better define the indications, outcomes, and complications of this technique in a population of patients with a failed total elbow arthroplasty. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of patients with aseptic failure of a total elbow replacement and proximal ulnar bone deficiency who were treated with allograft bone struts. The patients had had an average of 2.5 (range, one to four) prior open osseous operations addressing the elbow joint. In addition to revision of the prosthetic components, the deficient bone stock was treated with allograft strut grafts in one of four ways: (1) discrete cortical defects were contained, (2) periprosthetic fractures were splinted, (3) deficient triceps attachments were reconstructed, and (4) expanded segments were augmented with struts and filled with impaction graft. Twenty-one patients (twenty-two elbows) were followed for an average of four years (range, two to eleven years). RESULTS: The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved from 34 points preoperatively to 79 points at the time of the latest follow-up. The scores for pain, stability, and activities of daily living improved most; there was little change in motion. Complications, consisting of four soft-tissue and four osseous problems, occurred in eight patients. Three patients had incorporation of 26% to 50% of the graft; five, 51% to 75%; and fourteen, 76% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Most deficiencies of proximal ulnar bone stock and fractures complicating revision total elbow surgery can be treated with allograft strut grafting. Although the complication rate is high, this technique is suitable for discrete cortical lesions, periprosthetic fractures, and an expanded proximal part of the ulna, which also requires augmentation with impaction grafting. The technique has been unreliable, however, in restoring deficient olecranon bone stock.     

肱骨远端骨折全肘关节成形术

从4篇病例报道与1篇对照试验的研究可以看出,肱骨远端骨折行全肘关节成形术(TEA)效果良好.绝大多数患者TEA后功能结果为优良,很少发生松动、感染等并发症.异位骨化发生率为6%～16%,但是由于多数研究样本量较小、随访期限短,缺乏TEA与开放复位内固定比较的大量研究,因此还不能说TEA优于ORIF.     

Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is little information concerning periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. Therefore, we reviewed our experience with these fractures to determine the results of treatment, the risk factors for periprosthetic fracture, and the rates of reoperation. METHODS: Between 1976 and 2001, nineteen postoperative periprosthetic humeral fractures occurred among 3091 patients who had undergone shoulder arthroplasty at our institution. Sixteen patients had a complete series of radiographs and were included in this study. The average time from the arthroplasty to the fracture was forty-nine months. Seven patients had severe osteopenia. Twelve fractures occurred at the tip of the prosthesis; of these, six extended proximally (type-A fractures) and six did not (type-B fractures). Three fractures occurred distal to the implant and extended into the distal humeral metaphysis (type-C fractures). One fracture occurred in the proximal metadiaphyseal region because of osteolysis. RESULTS: Six fractures healed after an average of 180 days of nonoperative treatment. Five fractures were treated operatively after an average of 123 days of unsuccessful nonoperative treatment. The remaining five fractures had immediate operative treatment. All sixteen fractures healed. One patient required multiple operations over a period of three years before union was achieved. With the exclusion of this patient and one other patient who received a custom prosthesis, the average time between the first operative procedure and union was 278 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not clearly indicate the need for operative treatment of type-A fractures unless the humeral component is loose. A trial of nonoperative treatment may be considered for well-aligned type-B fractures that are associated with a well-fixed humeral component; however, operative intervention should be considered for type-B fractures that have not progressed toward union by three months. If the component is well fixed, open reduction and internal fixation may be performed. If the component is loose, revision with a long-stem component is recommended. For type-C fractures, a trial of nonoperative treatment is recommended.     

Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty

The increasing implantation rates of knee arthroplasties are associated with a growing prevalence of complications like periprosthetic fractures. Underlying patient, implant and/or operation technique-related risk factors contribute to these fractures which often occur after minor trauma. In the diagnostic process, fracture dislocation, implant stability, and integrity of the extensor mechanism have to be assessed. Valid classification systems are available to guide treatment decisions. Treatment goals are precise reposition, stable fixation, restoration of function, and early mobilization. In the case of an operative revision, the surgeon has to know the implanted device and has to be prepared for extended procedures and revision arthroplasty. Less invasive fixation devices like retrograde nailing or LISS are often sufficient to stabilize femoral supracondylar fractures, while loosening of the implant often requires extended exchange arthroplasty. Tibial fractures are often associated with osteolysis and bone loss which has to be addressed with bone grafts or augmented revision implants. Long-stemmed implants allow bypassing of the reconstructed defect and provide a stable solution for early mobilization. Patella fractures with stable or asymptomatic implants and continuity of the extensor mechanism should be treated conservatively. If reconstruction becomes necessary, results are often associated with significant functional limitations.     

Periprosthetic fractures after total knee joint arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fractures of the femur, tibia and patella are being registered with increasing frequency due to the rising numbers of total knee replacements. Depending on the site of the fracture, apart from mere traumatic mechanisms, implant specific parameters and implant loosening may represent the main causes of periprosthetic fracture. Moreover, general risk factors promote the manifestation of a periprosthetic fracture. Nowadays, valid classifications are available to categorize periprosthetic fractures of the femur, tibia and patella, and to create the basis for specific decision-making in choice of treatment. Despite a wide field of treatment options, the actual functional outcome after therapy and the high rates of complications imply that an adequate analysis of the fracture etiology and the corresponding transfer into an individualized treatment concept offer the chance of functional restoration of the patient similar to the pre-fracture state.     

Periprosthetic humeral fractures in shoulder arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fractures associated with shoulder arthroplasty are uncommon but can be very difficult to treat. Treatment options depend on the timing of the fracture, the type of fracture, and the stability of the implant. Understanding these characteristics of periprosthetic fractures helps the practicing surgeon to avoid them and also to determine how best to manage them when they do occur.     

Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: The management of periprosthetic fracture following a total hip arthroplasty is difficult, requiring expertise in both trauma and revision surgery. With rising numbers of patients in the population living with hip prostheses in situ, the frequency of these fractures is increasing, and controversy remains over their ideal management. The objective of this study was to review all periprosthetic fractures at a single institution to identify injury and treatment patterns and their associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-four periprosthetic fractures in 50 patients were reviewed to determine the relative frequency of fracture types, their complication rates and the clinical outcomes. Patient data were obtained through review of the clinical notes and individual patient follow up. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score. RESULTS: The 54 fractures were classified using the Vancouver system, most of which were type B1 (20) or type B2 (10). The mean time to union for all fracture types was 4.6 months. A high non-union rate was seen among fractures fixed operatively. Fifteen per cent of fractures went on to develop loosening following treatment, suggesting an underrecognition at the time of injury. The average Harris Hip Score was 73.1 and Oxford Hip Score 30.3 for all fracture types at a mean follow up of 3.3 years. In the 15 patients treated with revision surgery, the most common complication was dislocation (27%). CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with periprosthetic fractures requires recognition of the challenging nature of these injuries, the associated poor prognosis and the high complication rate.     

Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty: operative management and functional outcome

Background  Currently, little information is available on functional outcome of periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. This investigation aimed to evaluate functional and radiological outcome and patients’ satisfaction following this type of injury treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Methods  Retrospective chart analysis of patients treated at two level-I trauma centers. Patients were examined clinically and radiologically. Additionally, functional outcome was assessed using the established DASH-questionnaire and standardized examination for calculation of the Constant score. Results  Five out of six patients showed complete fracture consolidation with satisfying functional results (mean follow up time 62 weeks). One patient showed major complications with poor outcome. DASH and Constant scores were comparable to those described after primary shoulder arthroplasty. Conclusions  Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty can be treated by angular stable plating with low complication rates and acceptable results.     

Cortical strut allografts for the treatment of femoral fractures and deficiencies in revision total hip arthroplasty

Thirty-three hips had revision total hip arthroplasty, using an average of three cortical strut allografts fixed to the femur with cables and followed-up for a mean of 4 years. The indications for strut allografts were ectatic femurs or segmental defects of the femoral diaphysis (22 hips), femoral fractures (10 hips), and severe proximal femoral osteolysis (1 hip). Twenty-one hips had an excellent or good clinical result, 6 had a fair clinical result, and 6 had a poor clinical result. Reoperation was done in six hips, but in only two hips was reoperation related to failure of the allograft. Nine of the 10 femoral fractures repaired with allograft struts healed by 3 to 6 months. Radiographs showed partial or complete bridging of the allograft to host bone with peripheral remodeling and minimal resorption in 30 of 33 hips. Strut allografts, fixed with multiple cables, are an important adjunct to femoral component revision for the restoration of deficient femoral bone stock and in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures.     

Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total knee arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty is a potentially serious complication. This injury can involve the distal femur, proximal tibia or the patella. This review article analyzes the prevalence, risk factors, classification and treatment options for periprosthetic fractures of the femur.     

Periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty (TKA) occur in rare cases. However, the rate of TKA continues to rise. Given the increase in demand, orthopedists, more than ever, will be responsible for evaluating and treating these fractures. In order to properly treat periprosthetic fractures, a level of comfort with the basic principles on this topic is critical. This article will discuss fractures affecting the femoral, tibial and patellar components along with the respective classification systems. The potential patient risk factors and post-operative rehabilitation guidelines are also discussed.     

Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The number of total knee arthroplasties performed continues to rise annually and it would be expected that complications, which include periprosthetic fractures, will also therefore become more commonplace. This article reviews the current literature regarding this injury and identifies the treatment principles that enable patients to regain optimal function.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the Pubmed and Embase™ databases was performed to identify relevant articles. Keywords and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms included in the search strategy were ‘periprosthetic fracture(s)’, ‘femur’, ‘tibia’, ‘patella(r)’, ‘complication(s)’, ‘failure(s)’, ‘risk(s)’, ‘prevalence’, ‘incidence’, ‘epidemiology’ and ‘classification(s)’. The search was limited to all articles published in English and reference lists from the original articles were reviewed to identify pertinent articles to include in this review. A total number of 43 studies were identified.

RESULTS

Common treatment aims have been identified when managing patients with a periprosthetic fracture around total knee arthoplasty. The main criterion that determines which option to choose is the degree of remaining bone stock and the amount of fracture displacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of a periprosthetic fracture around total knee arthroplasty will either be non-operative, osteosynthesis or revision arthroplasty. It is imperative that a suitable option is chosen and based on the published literature, pathways are outlined to aid the surgeon.     

陈旧性肱骨远端复杂性骨折的人工肘关节置换

[目的]研究人工肘关节置换治疗陈旧性复杂性肱骨远端骨折的疗效.[方法] 1998年1月～2008年12月对14例陈旧性肱骨远端复杂性骨折置换人工肘关节14例进行随访,患者平均59.2岁,平均随访时间为8.4年.原骨折按AO分型,C2型4例,C3型10例.假体关节为Coonrad-Morrey半限制性假体.对术前后疼痛、关节活动度、稳定性、肌力和并发症等作为重点,经由Mayo肘关节评价、DASH评价、影像学评价有无假体松动和异位骨化等.[结果]4例在强度屈肘时轻度疼痛,本组肘关节平均屈曲112.6°(0°～144°),平均伸肘7.9°,屈124°,术后平均伸直受限22°.术后平均旋前79.8°,旋后78.2°.14例肘关节稳定,患者对治疗结果满意.并发术中内侧柱骨折、尺神经麻痹和异位骨化各1例.无假体松动.Mayo肘关节评价优(＞90分)7例,良(75～ 89分)7例.DASH评价平均48.2分(24.4～78分).[结论]人工肘关节置换治疗陈旧性肱骨远端复杂骨折畸形愈合或创伤性关节炎患者,是一种疗效肯定的治疗手段.