股骨重建钉治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈、股骨转子间骨折

目的探讨应用股骨重建钉内固定治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈、股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效.方法 10例使用股骨重建钉内固定治疗,对采用闭合穿钉或小切口复位穿钉手术的疗效进行回顾性分析.结果患者均获得随访,时间6～24个月.股骨颈、股骨转子间骨折平均愈合时间为5.1个月,股骨干骨折平均愈合时间为7个月,髋膝关节活动良好,无股骨头坏死征象.结论股骨重建钉是目前治疗股骨干合并同侧股骨颈、股骨转子间骨折有效的方法.     

全髋置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的分析全髋置换术后假体周围骨折的治疗方法及结果。方法回顾分析2003年1月至2007年12月收治的外伤所致的全髋置换术后假体周围骨折患者12例,男7例,女5例;年龄48～82岁,平均69.7岁。骨折发生于术后1个月～8年,平均3.3年。骨折发生原因：跌伤9例,交通伤2例,不明原因骨折1例。行关节置换术的原发病：股骨头缺血性坏死6例,髋关节退行性骨关节病4例,股骨颈骨折2例。根据Vancouver假体周围骨折分型标准：A型3例,B型7例,C型2例。A型采用保守治疗（外展卧床、牵引）及钢丝捆扎治疗,B型采用锯齿臂环抱内固定器、长柄假体翻修及异体皮质骨植骨治疗,C型应用解剖钢板内固定。结果12例患者均获得随访,随访时间1.5～5.5年,平均2年。除1例患者骨折未愈合外,余患者骨折均愈合,且均未发生感染、内固定断裂等并发症。结论全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折的治疗棘手,治疗方案需结合骨折部位、原置换假体有无松动、局部骨质量、身体状况而制定。     

Management of Periprosthetic Femur Fractures With Severe Bone Loss Using Impaction Bone Grafting Technique

We present a technique of femoral impaction grafting used for the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures with severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty. Seven patients with femoral fractures with compromise of the femoral isthmus were treated with femoral component revision using the impaction grafting bone technique. The average age was 64 years (range, 44-72 years), and 2 patients required mesh augmentation at the time of surgery. The average follow-up for this group of patients was 56 months (range, 39-92 months). Radiographic evaluation revealed healed fractures in all patients and no evidence of implant loosening at a mean of 56 months (range, 39-92 months). There were no cases of infections or dislocations in this series. Impaction grafting technique can be useful in the treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures when bone loss and canal geometry preclude the use of fully coated femoral components.     

The Management of Periprosthetic Fractures Oxford Trimodular Femoral Stem: A Survivorship Study

A consecutive series of 40 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated with revision hip surgery using the Oxford trimodular femoral stem, were retrospectively studied, with an average follow-up of 7.9 years. Fractures were classified according to the Vancouver classification. There were 5 type B1 fractures, 28 type B2, and 7 type C. Radiographic union was achieved in 38 (95%) hips. The mean time to fracture union was 3.5 months. The prosthesis survival at 5 years was 95% (confidence interval, 88%-100%). Clinical results were good with a mean Oxford hip score of 30 (hip score maximum, 48). Complications included 1 nonunion, 1 infection, 1 dislocation, and 2 aseptic loosening. The Oxford trimodular femoral component is a safe and reliable prosthesis for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with satisfactory medium-term results.     

髋关节置换术中股骨假体周围骨折危险因素的分析

目的分析髋关节置换术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生情况和危险因素。方法选择本组自2002年1月至2008年12月所有行初次和翻修髋关节置换术患者共3021髋(初次置换术2718髋,翻修术294髋),分析术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生情况,并用Logistic回归分析骨折发生的相关因素,包括性别、年龄、术前诊断、假体类型、固定方式。用2检验进行初次置换和翻修术中发生骨折的差异性检验。结果总的术中股骨假体周围骨折发生率为5.7%(173/3021),其中初次置换发生率为4.0%(110/2718),翻修术发生率为21.4%(63/294)。初次置换应用骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为1.9%(8/429),非骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为4.5%(102/2289),初次置换术中骨折82.7%(91/110)发生于干骺端;翻修术应用骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为18.8%(21/112),非骨水泥股骨假体术中骨折发生率为23.1%(42/182),翻修术术中骨折62%(39/63)发生于骨干部。Logistic回归分析显示:初次髋关节置换术中骨折的危险因素包括性别、术前诊断、固定方式、假体类型;翻修术性别、年龄、假体固定方式不是引起术中骨折的危险因素。应用2检验,翻修术中股骨假体骨折的风险与初次置换相比差异有统计学意义(P0.000),OR值为6.5,95%CI(4.6,9.1)。结论初次髋关节置换术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生率为4.0%,主要发生于干骺端(83.6%),女性、髋关节发育不良、髋部骨折、高位脱位、非骨水泥固定是术中骨折的危险因素;髋关节翻修术中股骨假体周围骨折的发生率(21.4%),远高于初次髋关节置换术,主要发生于骨干部(61.9%),骨折的发生与否可能主要取决于翻修时的骨质情况,性别、年龄、假体固定方式并不是主要的影响因素。     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗的随访研究

目的 探讨全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗方法的选择,总结同种异体皮质骨板移植重建股骨假体周围骨折的临床效果.方法 22例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者,男7例,女15例;年龄平均65岁(53～75岁).Vancouver分类B1型5例,B2型4例,B3型13例.B1型骨折采用异体皮质骨板移植加钢丝环扎治疗;B2型骨折选择加长股骨柄翻修;B3型骨折选择骨水泥柄翻修,加同种异体皮质骨板移植和钢丝环扎同定.所有患者均获得随访,随访时间平均67个月(37～95个月).采用Harris髋关节功能评分、X线片、外周血T淋巴细胞亚群、抗体免疫复合物检测 和核素骨显像对治疗结果进行评价.结果 22例患者骨折全部愈合,21例患者能自由行走,1例需要助 行器帮助.末次随访Harris评分平均89分(79～93分).患者未发生免疫排斥反应;术后3个月,骨折愈合,术后12个月,移植骨板与宿主骨骨性愈合,股骨皮质厚度增加3～5mm;核素骨显像骨板移植区放射性核素分布较对侧浓集.3例患者移植骨板出现部分吸收现象.术后2年.骨板与宿主骨融合,移植骨板吸收停止.结论 针对股骨假体周围骨折不同类型分别采取不同方法治疗能够取得较好疗效,同种异体皮质骨板移植在维持骨折稳定性、促进骨折愈合、增加局部骨量和改善骨强度方面有较好疗效.     

交锁翻修柄在股骨侧假体翻修术的应用

目的 报道采用交锁翻修柄(Bicontact和Kent)进行在全髋关节股骨侧假体翻修手术的疗效。方法 12例股骨侧假体翻修手术(假体松动5例，假体周围骨折7例)均采用现代无骨水泥技术，Bictintact翻修柄8例，Kent翻修假体4例，结合金属网、钢丝线缆握紧系统器械和异体骨移植进行结构重建。结果 平均随访8．40个月，功能优良10例(83．34％)，可1例(8．33％)，差1例(8．33％)，后出现Bicontact假体柄断裂和股骨干骨折。结论 在老年患股骨侧假体翻修术中，运用交锁翻修柄(Bicontact和Kent)能使手术时间和创伤减少，股骨侧固定快且牢固，并允许患早期进行功能锻炼；在股骨近端广泛骨缺失而需要大块异体骨移植进行重建的情况下，交锁翻修柄解决了既往各种假体较难固定于异体植骨块和残留的受体股骨中的问题。     

Locking compression plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty

IntroductionRevision arthroplasty is currently the recommended treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and stem loosening (Vancouver B2). However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) utilizing locking compression plate (LCP) might be an effective treatment with a reduced surgical time and less complex procedure in a typically elderly patient collective with multiple comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes in two cohorts with Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary THA, treated either by ORIF with LCP fixation, or by revision arthroplasty utilizing a non-cemented long femoral stem.Materials and Methods36 patients with Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures following THA, who had been treated between 2000 and 2014, were reviewed. Eight fractures were treated with LCP fixation, fourteen fractures with the first-generation revision prosthesis (Helios^®), and fourteen fractures with the second-generation revision prosthesis (Hyperion™). The patients were assessed clinically with the Parker mobility score and radiographically.ResultsA total of ten males and 26 females formed the basis of this report with an average age of 81years (range, 64 to 96 years). All fractures treated with LCP fixation alone healed uneventfully and there were no signs of secondary stem migration, malalignement or plate breakage. The average surgical time was shorter in the ORIF cohort; however, the results were not statistically significant. The postoperative Parker mobility score at latest follow-up showed no difference between the groups.ConclusionsAccording to the results of the current study, we conclude that the use of LCP fixation can be a sufficient option for the treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures correspondingly with femoral stem loosening.     

Treatment of ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures with reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail

Objective: To evaluate the results of reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail in the treatment of ipsllateral hip and femoral shaft fractures. Methods: From August 1997 to November 2001, 13 patients were treated with the reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail. Nine patients were associated with ipsllateral femoral neck fractures, three with ipsilateral intertrochanteric fractures, and one with subtrochanteric fracture. Results: The follow-up time was from 6 to 38 months with an average of 14 months. All the femoral shaft and hip fractures healed up well. There was no nonunion of the femoral neck, and only one varns malunion. No patient had avascular necrosis of the femoral head. The average healing time for femoral neck fracture was 4.6 months and for shaft fracture 5.8 months. The joint movement and other functions were fairly resumed. Conclusions: The reconstructive intramedullary interlocking nail, with less trauma, refiable fixation, and high rate of fracture healing, is an ideal method of choice in the treatment of ipsilateral hip and femoral shaft fractures.     

Dall-Miles cable and plate fixation system in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: a review of 20 cases

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of Dall-Miles cables and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip arthroplasties. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 20 cases of periprosthetic femoral fracture treated with the Dall-Miles cable and plate system between November 1999 and December 2002 in James Paget Hospital in the United Kingdom. Demographic data, fracture type, and surgical outcome of the patients were reviewed and assessed. RESULTS: Of the 20 cases of periprosthetic femoral fracture, one was of Vancouver type A, 15 were of type B1, and 4 were of type C. The mean age at operation was 78.5 years (range, 68-90 years) with a male to female ratio of 11:9. The mean time to union was 3.9 months (range, 3-8 months), and the mean follow-up period was 19.4 months (range, 1-4 years). 15 patients achieved satisfactory results, including 2 delayed unions that healed with a residual varus deformity of 15 degrees in the femoral component. Three patients developed deep-seated wound infections. No nonunion of fractures or fixation system failures occurred. CONCLUSION: The Dall-Miles cable and plate fixation system alone is a sufficient treatment for most periprosthetic femoral fractures. In the management of B1 fractures, there was no significant difference in clinical outcome, despite the various combinations of cables and screws used for stabilisation of the plate. However, in cases of comminution at the fracture site, junctional grafting with morsellised autograft may be used in addition to internal fixation to accelerate union.     

Principles of internal fixation and selection of implants for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are increasing as a result of changes in population demographics and the increase in the number of total hip replacements performed. The overall incidence has been reported to range from 0.1% to 6% of all total hip arthroplasties. Management of these fractures is often particularly demanding, complex and expensive. In many cases, the surgeon has to solve the simultaneous problems of implant loosening, bone loss and fracture. A thorough understanding of the unique characteristics of the different fracture types, the principles of PFF treatment and a familiarity with the various fixation devices, grafts and prosthetic implants are all of paramount importance. Internal fixation is used either alone or as an adjunct to stem revision. The stability of the original implant and the configuration of the fracture itself are the basic factors that influence the decision-making process. The current study reviews the existing literature on internal fixation of femoral periprosthetic fractures.     

复杂性髋臼骨折合并同侧股骨颈骨折及多处骨折的治疗与对策

目的:探索复杂性髋臼骨折(complex acetabular fractures,CAF)合并同侧股骨颈骨折及多处骨折的治疗方法与对策。方法:2000年8月-2005年3月,收治复杂性髋臼骨折合并同侧股骨颈及多处骨折12例,男7例,女5例;年龄24～51岁,平均37.5岁,皆系高能量损伤。合并其他部位骨折23处,平均2.6处。采用改良髋臼入路,应用髋臼三维记忆内固定系统(ATMFS)、空心加压螺钉、Richard钉、交锁髓内钉、天鹅记忆接骨器(SMC)等固定骶髂关节分离、复杂性髋臼骨折、股骨颈、股骨干、胫骨干、肱骨、尺桡骨骨折。结果:术后随访6～31个月,平均13.5个月。12例复杂性髋臼骨折均获解剖复位并达骨性愈合;同侧股骨颈骨折也获解剖复位,10例达骨性愈合。术后3～7个月(平均4.6个月),髋关节功能达到健侧水平;1例出现股骨头缺血性坏死行关节置换;1例股骨头坏死合并异位骨化导致关节骨性融合。4例骶髂关节分离获解剖复位;其他23处骨折,均获骨愈合。根据髋关节功能评分标准:优3例,良6例,一般1例,差2例。结论:采用改良髋臼入路、应用髋臼三维记忆内固定系统固定髋臼骨折,同时固定股骨颈骨折及合并的多处骨折,配合术后早期的功能锻炼,可以使髋关节获得良好的功能。     

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty is indicated for most periprosthetic fractures that occur around the stem of the femoral implant. The purpose of the present study was to assess the results and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: We evaluated 118 hips in 116 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty because of an acute Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fracture. The femoral implant used for the revision was a cemented stem in forty-two hips, a proximally porous-coated uncemented stem in twenty-eight, an extensively porous-coated stem in thirty, and an allograft-prosthesis composite or tumor prosthesis in eighteen. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.4 years. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the probability of survival was 90% at five years and 79.2% at ten years with revision or removal of the femoral implant for any reason as the end point. Sixteen femoral components were rerevised: ten were rerevised because of loosening; three, because of loosening in association with a fracture nonunion; two, because of recurrent dislocation; and one, because of a new periprosthetic fracture. Additionally, six femoral implants were resected because of deep infection (five) or prosthetic loosening (one). Radiographs of the ninety-six hips with a surviving implant showed that twenty-one had evidence of loosening of the femoral implant, four had a nonunion of the femoral fracture, and two had both a nonunion and loosening of the femoral implant. CONCLUSIONS: Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture around the stem of the femoral implant successfully restored function for most patients. The greatest long-term problems were prosthetic loosening and fracture nonunion. Better results were seen when an uncemented, extensively porous-coated stem was used.     

Total hip arthroplasty for acute femoral neck fractures using a cementless tapered femoral stem

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration potential and implant-related complications of cementless total hip arthroplasty with a titanium alloy collarless, tapered, wedge-shaped femoral stem with a proximal circumferential plasma-spray coating in patients with acute hip fractures. The cohort consists of 85 patients with a mean age of 78.1 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 3.8 years. Total hip arthroplasty conferred significant improvement in function for all patients. All femoral components were stable with evidence of bone ingrowth (84 hips) or fibrous fixation (1 hip). Mild thigh pain was present in 3 patients. The complications included dislocation (3 cases), intraoperative femoral fracture (2 cases), and periprosthetic femoral fracture in the postoperative period (1 case). There was one reoperation for revision of the femoral component in the patient with a periprosthetic fracture. There were 25 (29%) deaths. Cementless total hip arthroplasty using a tapered proximally coated femoral stem is a viable option for the treatment of a displaced hip fracture and preexistent arthritis.     

锁定加压钢板合并捆扎带治疗股骨假体周围骨折

目的探讨捆扎带合并锁定加压钢板固定治疗股骨假体周围骨折的临床效果。方法对7例股骨假体周围骨折进行切开复位,锁定加压钢板固定,在含有假体的股骨近折端用锁定螺钉作单侧骨皮质固定,不含假体的股骨远折端作双侧骨皮质螺钉固定,同时在包含假体的骨折端两侧利用捆扎带将股骨及钢板同时捆扎固定,自体骨或异体骨植骨。对假体不稳的患者在骨折复位后行假体翻修术。结果术后患者可早期起床运动：随访5个月～3年,骨折未见移位,7例假体周围骨折均获得愈合,髋关节功能得到恢复。假体未见松动。结论股骨假体周围骨折大多为长螺旋型骨折,捆扎带合并锁定加压钢板治疗股骨假体周围骨折简单有效,固定效果确切,根据骨缺损情况辅以植骨,可获得良好的临床效果。     

全涂层远端固定长柄假体治疗髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的临床研究

目的分析全涂层远端固定长柄假体治疗髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折的临床效果。方法回顾性分析35例使用全涂层远端固定长柄假体治疗的髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折病例,根据Vancouver分型,B2型12例,B3型20例,C型3例,通过Harris评分对患髋进行功能评价,X线片观察骨折愈合、股骨柄下沉情况。结果3例行单纯长柄假体翻修,10例行长柄假体翻修＋钢丝环扎固定,22例行长柄假体翻修＋同种异体颗粒骨压配植骨＋同种异体骨板捆绑固定治疗,平均随访4．5年,所有骨折均顺利愈合,平均愈合时间为15．3周,Harris评分平均86．5分,2例股骨柄分别下沉3mm和4mm,均在术后3个月达到稳定,32例假体获得骨长入固定,3例获得稳定的纤维固定,未发现骨溶解、感染以及再发骨折。结论髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折选择全涂层远端固定长柄假体翻修,根据骨缺损严重程度合理选择同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨＋同种异体骨板捆绑固定可以获得良好的临床效果。     

The Use of Standard Cemented Femoral Stems in Total Hip Replacement After Failed Internal Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures

BackgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) after failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fractures is challenging. The aim of this study is to show the reliability of using standard cemented femoral stems in this operation.MethodsThis work included 107 THRs performed in 107 patients after failed treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. The etiology of failure included 67 cases of failure of fixation, 16 cases of nonunion, 15 cases of avascular necrosis, and 9 cases of post-traumatic osteoarthritis. There were 48 males and 59 females. The mean age was 66 years (range 58-81). Failed dynamic hip screws were removed at the time of THR, and the screw holes were blocked with cement. All cases had cemented standard stem femoral prostheses.ResultsAt an average 7.4 years with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up, 102 cases had good clinical and radiological outcomes and 5 cases had fair outcomes. One patient was infected and required 2 stages of revision arthroplasty. Two cases had intraoperative proximal femoral crack, and were treated by cerclage wires. Two patients had early postoperative dislocations. No patients had late periprosthetic femoral fractures or implant loosening.ConclusionStandard cemented femoral stems are reliable and cost-effective prostheses in such cases. It is not necessary to bypass the distal screw hole by doubling the femoral canal diameter as long as the bone holes are covered by cement.     

Intraoperative periprosthetic hip fractures

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are among the most difficult and expensive complications of total hip arthroplasty. A rise in the elderly population and the increased indications of primary and revision hip arthroplasty has led to an escalating incidence. Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming more common given the increased numbers of revision total hip arthroplasty and the use of cementless fixation. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures include the use of minimally invasive techniques; the use of press-fit cementless stems and cups; revision surgery, specially when a long cementless stem or a short stem with impaction allografting is used; female gender; metabolic bone disease; bone diseases leading to altered morphology such as Paget disease and technical errors during the operation.     

Retrograde Marknagelung bei periprothetischen Frakturen des distalen Femurs

Objective

Intramedullary stabilization of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures by interlocking nailing. Closed reduction by retrograde nail can be combined with the use of transmedullary support screws (TMS principle of Stedtfeld).

Indications

Supracondylar fractures above stable knee arthroplasty (Rorabeck types I and II), femoral shaft fractures ipsilateral of stable hip and/or knee arthroplasty, contraindications for antegrade nailing

Contraindications

Closed box design of femoral implant, intercondylar distance of the femoral component smaller than nail diameter, more than 40° flexion deficit of the knee, inability to place two bicortical distal interlocking screws. Relative contraindication: insufficient overlap with proximal implants

Surgical technique

Supine position and knee flexion of approximately 45°. Fluoroscopy should be possible between the knee and hip. Longitudinal skin incision into the pre-existing scar over the patellar tendon which is then split. The nail entry point is located in the intercondylar groove at the deepest point of Blumensaat’s line, often predetermined by the femoral arthroplasty component. Reaming is rarely necessary. Transmedullary support screws may correct axial malalignment during nail insertion. Static interlocking in a direction from lateral to medial by the aiming device. Insertion of locking cap.

Postoperative management

Retrograde nailing normally allows full weight bearing. Range of motion does not need to be restricted.

Results

Out of 101 fractures treated between 2000 and 2013 with a Targon RF nail (Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) 10 were periprosthetic, all were classified as Rorabeck type II and of these 6 fractures were metaphyseal and 4 were diaphyseal. In four cases proximal implants were present. The mean operative time for periprosthetic fracture fixation did not significantly differ from that for normal retrograde femoral nailing. There were no postoperative infections, fixation failures or delayed unions. There was one revision for secondary correction of maltorsion.     

Carbon fibre plates in the treatment of femoral periprosthetic fractures

A retrospective review of fractures occurring around the femoral component of total hip replacements was performed using patient notes and X rays. Between 1996 and 2002, 12 patients with total hip replacement had fixation of their periprosthetic femoral shaft fracture with carbon fibre plates. The mean patient age was 76 years (range 57-94). With regard to fracture type (Johansson Classification), three were Type 2 and nine were Type 3. In 11 cases the average time to union was 4 months (range 3-6). There was one non-union leading to implant failure. This was subsequently treated with a revision arthroplasty. There were no other significant complications. Although designed to fit the supracondylar region of the femur, we had no difficulty in applying the plate over the trochanteric region. Our results indicate that carbon fibre plates are effective in the management of femoral periprosthetic fractures in the elderly and this may be related to the unique properties of the plate.