Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study.

Background:

Management of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures is difficult. Osteoporosis, comminution and bone loss, compromise stability with delayed mobility and poor functional outcomes. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with anatomic distal femoral (DF) locking plate permits early mobilization. However, this usually necessitates bone grafting (BG). Biological fixation using minimally invasive techniques minimizes periosteal stripping and morbidity.

Materials and Methods:

31 patients with comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures were reviewed retrospectively from October 2006 to September 2012. All patients underwent fixation using a DF locking compression plate (Synthes). 17 patients underwent ORIF with primary BG, whereas 14 were treated by closed reduction (CR) and internal fixation using biological minimally invasive techniques. Clinical and radiological followup were recorded for an average 36 months.

Results:

Mean time to union for the entire group was 5.6 months (range 3-9 months). Patients of ORIF group took longer (Mean 6.4 months, range 4.5-9 months) than the CR group (mean 4.6 months, range 3-7 months). Three patients of ORIF and one in CR group had poor results. Mean knee society scores were higher for CR group at 6 months, but nearly identical at 12 months, with similar eventual range of motion.

Discussion:

Locked plating of comminuted periprosthetic DF fractures permits stable rigid fixation and early mobilization. Fixation using minimally invasive biological techniques minimizes morbidity and may obviate the need for primary BG.     

锁定接骨板内固定治疗全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折

2007年2月-2013年2月,我科应用锁定接骨板治疗21例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折Vancouver B型患者,获得较好的效果,报道如下.     

Megaprostheses for well-fixed TKA femoral fractures

The use of distal femoral replacement (DFR) prosthesis is an option for treating distal femoral periprosthetic fracture (PPF). It is particularly helpful when the distal femoral bone is small and not amenable to rigid fixation. We report the results of 13 distal femoral PPFs at an average age of 77.5 years that were treated by this technique. At a mean follow-up of 30.5 months, the average Knee Society Score and functional score were 82 and 20, respectively. All patients who were ambulatory before fracture, regained their ability to walk after the surgery. There was a revision surgery for treating patellar instability. DFR is a reliable treatment for distal femoral PPFs with poor bone stock that allows for early ambulation in an elderly and low-demand group of patients.     

全膝关节置换术后KimⅠB型股骨侧假体周围骨折的手术治疗

目的 探讨膝关节表面置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的手术方法及临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2015年7月至2019年7月采用手术治疗的9例股骨假体周围骨折患者,女性8例,男性1例,年龄65～92岁,平均(75.3±8.7)岁.所有病例均为初次膝关节表面置换术后,假体为骨水泥型.Kim分型均为ⅠB型.骨折发生时间为术后3个月至1...     

两种内固定治疗全髋关节置换术后继发股骨假体周围骨折疗效比较

目的探讨2种内固定治疗全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的临床疗效。方法将24例髋关节置换术后继发股骨假体周围骨折患者随机分为2组,分别采用锁定钢板内固定(A组12例)和形状记忆合金环抱器内固定(B组12例)治疗,比较分析两种内固定方法的疗效。结果 24例患者均获随访,时间10～24个月。A组患肢负重恢复时间4.5～7个月,骨折愈合时间10～24个月,术后髋关节功能Harris评分为(84.26±9.27)分;B组患肢负重恢复时间5.5～9个月,骨折愈合时间14～24个月,术后髋关节功能Harris评分为(72.35±8.57)分。A组术后髋关节功能评分明显高于B组(P<0.05)。结论在髋关节置换术后继发股骨假体周围骨折治疗中,锁定钢板内固定较形状记忆合金环抱器内固定疗效好。     

Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur: Is Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Distal Femoral Replacement Superior?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to distal femoral replacement (DFR) for treatment of displaced periprosthetic distal femur fractures.MethodsWe identified 72 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up following a displaced periprosthetic distal femur fracture: 50 were treated with ORIF and 22 with DFR. Outcomes were assessed with multivariate regression analysis and include Knee Society Scores (KSS), infection rates, revision incidence, and mortality.ResultsPatients treated with DFR had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.2 vs 3.8; P = .006). The mean postoperative KSS were similar between groups, but the Knee Society Functional Scores were higher in the ORIF group (P = .01). Six ORIF patients (12%) and 3 DFR patients (14%) underwent a revision surgery (P = .1). In the ORIF group, 3 revisions were associated with periprosthetic infection, and 3 revisions occurred for aseptic nonunion. In the DFR group, 1 infection was treated with irrigation and debridement, and 2 cases of patellar maltracking resulted in 1 liner exchange with soft tissue release and 1 femoral revision for malrotation. More patients in the ORIF group required repeat revisions, with twice as many total revisions (P < .001). Six ORIF patients and 7 DFR patients died within 2 years (P = .26).ConclusionThe Knee Society Functional Score favored ORIF, but the total incidence of revision was higher in the ORIF cohort. Given the high mortality and the substantial risk of reoperation in both groups, additional studies are needed regarding the prevention of and optimal treatment for patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures.     

Periprosthetic femoral supracondylar fracture after total knee arthroplasty with navigation system

We report 1 patient with a supracondylar periprosthetic fracture 1 month after computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. The fracture line extended from previous anchoring pinholes into the supracondyle area. Intramedullary nailing of the left femur was performed under close reduction. The possible complication of pinhole fracture to total knee arthroplasty with navigation system should be kept in mind.     

Periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: clinical comparison and related complications of the femur plate system and retrograde-inserted supracondylar nail

Background

The purpose of this study is to analyze the clinical results and related complications of the femur plate system (FP) and the retrograde-inserted supracondylar nail (RISN).

Materials and methods

The study included 42 cases of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures (PSF) proximal to posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty between 2005 and 2009. Twenty-four cases of PSF were treated with the FP, and the other 18 cases were treated with the RISN. This study cohort was divided into subgroups according to the AO classification. We retrospectively compared the clinical results between the FP and RISN group.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of time of clinical union (p = 0.649). In the subgroup analysis, the mean operation time was significantly different only in subgroup A1 (p = 0.03). Complications were seen in 29.2 % (7/24) of patients in the FP group and 27.8 % (5/18) in the RISN group. The age during the index TKA and fracture fixation was a significant risk (p = 0.008) factor for complications between the two groups. No significant differences were found in the other factors between the two groups. The p value for operative time (p = 0.223), immobilization period (p = 0.129), ROM (p = 0.573), KSS (p = 0.379), KSS functional scores (p = 0.310) and time to union (p = 0.649).

Conclusion

Clinical results did not differ according to the treatment methods used. Fixation method and fracture type did not cause an increase in the complication rate, but there was a trend toward higher non-union rates with the FP method and higher re-fracture rate with the RISN method. Noting the fact that only increasing age correlated with an increased complication rate, more careful attention should be paid to elderly patients in terms of both prevention and surgical care.

Level of evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

Less invasive stabilization system for the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip arthroplasty

We present a study of 18 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with less invasive stabilization system between September 2001 and March 2005. Three patients died during the follow-up period owing to unrelated causes and are excluded from the final results. The average age was 81.6 years, and the average follow-up period was 11.7 months. Twelve patients had significant comorbidities preoperatively. The surviving 15 patients had satisfactory fracture union, although one patient required replating with a less invasive stabilization system plate after a fall. One patient developed deep infection with a chronic sinus. Three patients were noted to have mild to moderate discomfort around the prominent implant.     

Enhancing fixation strength in periprosthetic femur fractures by orthogonal plating—A biomechanical study

Orthogonal plate osteosynthesis enhances fixation stability in periprosthetic femur fractures. Another option are locking attachment plates (LAP) allowing bicortical locking screw placement lateral to the prosthesis stem. Stability of lateral plate osteosynthesis with two LAP (2LAP) was compared to anterolateral orthogonal plate osteosynthesis (OP) with one LAP in a periprosthetic femur fracture model. In six pairs of fresh frozen human femora with cemented Charnley hip prosthesis, a transverse osteotomy was set distal to the tip of the prosthesis simulating a Vancouver type B1 fracture. Each pair was instrumented using a plate tensioner with either one lateral plate and two LAP, or two orthogonal anterolateral plates and one LAP. Stiffness was determined in a four‐point‐bending test prior to cyclic testing (2Hz) with physiologic profile and progressively increasing load up to catastrophic construct failure. Paired t‐test and Wilcoxon‐signed‐rank test were used for statistical evaluation at a level of significance p = 0.05. The OP construct exhibited a significantly higher number of cycles and load to failure (39,627 cycles ± 4,056; 4,463 N ± 906) compared to the 2LAP construct (32,927 cycles ± 3,487; 3,793 N ± 849), p < 0.01. Mediolateral bending and torsional stiffness of the OP (1610 N/mm ± 249; 16.9 Nm/mm ± 6.3) were significantly higher compared to 2 LAP (1077 N/mm ± 189; 12.1 Nm/mm ± 3.9), p = 0.03 for both comparisons. Orthogonal plate osteosynthesis is a valuable option in periprosthetic fracture surgery, offering increased stability compared to a single lateral plate fixed with two LAP. © 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:591–596, 2016.     

The use of a revision femoral stem to manage a distal femoral periprosthetic fracture in a well-fixed total knee arthroplasty

Managing very distal femoral periprosthetic fracture above a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a difficult problem. When a cruciate sacrificing TKA is used, bone stock around the implant is compromised and, therefore, can limit fixation options. We present technique using the revision system femoral stem for the PFC Sigma TKA (Depuy; Leeds, England) to stabilize this particular type of fracture.     

Distal Femoral Replacement for Periprosthetic Fractures After TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Review

BackgroundDistal femoral replacement (DFR) is a potential treatment option following periprosthetic fracture (PPF) of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is limited literature regarding implant survivorship and complication rates. The aim of this study was to examine patient demographics and trends in usage, implant survivorship and modes of failure, and patient mortality following DFR for PPF captured by a national joint replacement registry.MethodsA retrospective registry review was performed using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). In total, 306 DFR were performed for PPF of a known primary TKA. Eighty-five percent of patients were female, and the mean age was 76.4 years. Kaplan–Meier estimates of implant and patient survivorship were performed.ResultsThe number of DFR performed for PPF has doubled over the past five years. The cumulative percent second revision rate at six years was 12%. The most common indications for revision were infection (37%) and aseptic loosening (33%). Patient survivorship after DFR was 97% and 83% at five and ten years, respectively.ConclusionA national registry review has identified the increasing prevalence of DFR for PPF after primary TKA and demonstrated implant survivorship of 88% at midterm follow-up. Surgeons may consider DFR as an acceptable and durable treatment option.Level of EvidenceLevel III – Case Series.     

Frequency and associated factor of atypical periprosthetic femoral fracture after hip arthroplasty

BackgroundAtypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a serious complication after the use of bisphosphonates, and periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) appeared as a common complication after hip arthroplasty, especially in senile patients. Although American Society for Bone and Mineral Research has excluded PFFs from the definition of AFFs, several case reports found PFF patients undergoing bisphosphonate treatment, have fractures resembling AFF and the authors suggested that AFF can also occur in operated femurs after hip arthroplasty. To date, the frequency and risk factors of atypical PFF are unknown. The purpose of our study was (1) to evaluate the proportion of atypical PFF among Vancouver type B PFFs, and (2) to determine the association between occurrence of atypical PFF and use of bisphosphonate.MethodsWe reviewed medical records and radiographs of 67 Vancouver type B PFFs (67 patients) due to low-energy trauma and classified them into atypical PFF group and ordinary PFF group. We calculated the proportion of atypical PFFs among PFFs and identified risk factors for atypical PFF.ResultsAmong the 67 PFFs, 7 fractures (10.4%) were classified as atypical PFF. Longer duration of bisphosphonate use was an independent risk factor of atypical PFF. (Odds ratio 2.600, 95% CI 1.184–5.709, p = 0.017).ConclusionIn accordance with wide use of bisphosphonate, atypical PFFs after hip arthroplasty are not rare anymore. Physicians should suspect the atypical PFF, when they meet low-energy fracture in bisphosphonate users, and radiographs show features of AFF.     

Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total hip arthroplasty with an extensively coated femoral component

Late periprosthetic fractures may occur around loose cemented femoral components, usually as a consequence of osteolytic bone deficiency. The management of these fractures should include revision total hip arthroplasty using techniques that achieve fracture healing and component stability. If a cementless component is to be used, osseointegration is desirable. Presented herein is a technique of revision total hip arthroplasty for this injury using a curved, extensively coated femoral component. Four cases have been followed for a minimum of 2 years. Each case achieved a good or excellent clinical outcome while radiographs demonstrated fracture healing and osseointegration.     

Management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures using distal femoral arthroplasty and fixation - Comparative study of outcomes and costs

PurposeOur study compares the outcome and cost of distal femoral arthroplasty to that of Fixation (Plating/Retrograde Nailing) in the management of distal femur peri-prosthetic fractures.MethodsWe reviewed our database for patients admitted with peri-prosthetic distal femoral fractures between 2005 and 2013 (n = 61). The patients were stratified into 2 groups based on management method. The Distal Femoral Arthroplasty group (Group A) had 21 patients and the Fixation group (Group B) had 40 patients. Outcome & cost were compared. Minimum follow-up was 3 years.ResultsThe mean length of stay in group A was 9 days whereas in group B was 32 days. All patients were fully weight bearing by day 3 in group A, compared to a mean of 11 weeks in group B. Mean OKS was 28 and KSS score was 70 in group A compared to 27 and 68 in group B. In group A, there were 2 deaths, 1 superficial infection, and 1 DVT. In group B, there were 6 deaths, 1 failure of fixation, 6 mal-unions, 1 non-union and 2 infections. Overall, the distal femoral arthroplasty procedure costs approximately £9600 and the fixation group costs were on average of £9800.ConclusionDistal femoral arthroplasty appears to provide good clinical results, with comparable overall costs to fixation.     

Custom total femur spacer and second-stage total femur arthroplasty as a novel approach to infection and periprosthetic fracture

Total femur arthroplasty procedures have previously been used after tumor excision and as a last resort for failed revision arthroplasty. The patient in this case presented with massive loss of femoral bone stock, a periprosthetic fracture, and recurrent Staphylococcus epidermidis infection. A specially designed total femoral spacer impregnated with antibiotics was created for a 2-stage revision procedure that successfully restored functional ability and eradicated the infection. Although 2-stage protocols with spacers have been used to treat persistent infections after hip and knee arthroplasty, this is the first reported instance of the creation of a total femur antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer and subsequent total femoral arthroplasty as a 2-stage protocol at our institution.     

Reverse distal femoral locking compression plate a salvage option in nonunion of proximal femoral fractures

Background:When primary fixation of proximal femoral fractures with implants fails, revision osteosynthesis may be challenging. Tracts of previous implants and remaining insufficient bone stock in the proximal femur pose unique problems for the treatment. Intramedullary implants like proximal femoral nail (PFN) or surface implants like Dynamic Condylar Screw (DCS) are few of the described implants for revision surgery. There is no evidence in the literature to choose one implant over the other. We used the reverse distal femur locking compression plate (LCP) of the contralateral side in such cases undergoing revision surgery. This implant has multiple options of fixation in proximal femur and its curvature along the length matches the anterior bow of the femur. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this implant in salvage situations.Results:All fractures exhibited union without any complications. Union was assessed clinically and radiologically. One case of ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fracture required bone grafting at the second stage for delayed union of the femoral shaft fracture.Conclusions:Reverse distal femoral LCP of the contralateral side can be used as a salvage option for failed fixation of proximal femoral fractures exhibiting nonunion.     

全膝关节置换股骨切迹发生因素分析及远期随访研究

[目的]分析全膝关节置换(total knee arthroplasty,TKA)股骨切迹发生的相关因素及其对术后功能康复和股骨髁上骨折的影响.[方法]2004年1月～2006年1月本组行初次TKA 417例(471膝),单膝置换363例,双膝置换54例;男186例,女231例.417例中骨性关节炎351例,类风湿性关节炎62例,创伤性关节炎14例.分析TKA术中股骨开髓点、股骨远端屈曲角度、髓内定位杆插入深度、股骨假体型号选择策略与股骨切迹的相关性,随访并记录KSS评分和股骨髁上骨折发生情况.[结果]417例中失访21例,深部感染4例,共392例(442膝)列入本研究.随访4～6年,股骨切迹发生率为8.7%(41/471).切迹组41例(41膝)末次随访未出现骨折病例,无切迹组351例(401膝)中2例(2膝)股骨髁上骨折,两组骨折发生率比较无显著性差异(x2检验,P＞0.05).股骨切迹组和无切迹组术后4年KSS评分无显著性差异(t检验,P＞0.05);切迹深度和KSS评分之间无明显相关性(P=0.761).[结论]TKA术中股骨切迹相关因素包括进针点失误、股骨假体旋转不良、股骨假体型号选择偏小以及股骨截骨模块后移等.股骨切迹对TKA术后远期功能康复及髁上骨折发生无明显影响.     

Distal Femoral Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Periprosthetic Fractures After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty present substantial challenge if associated with poor bone stock, fracture comminution, and loose or damaged components. Revision total knee arthroplasty with distal femoral arthroplasty is often necessary in these injuries. We reviewed 20 patients (22 knees) with a mean age of 69.5 years who underwent revision with distal femoral arthroplasty fracture. Patients were followed for an average of 58.6 months. At the latest follow-up, the mean Knee Society knee and functional score were 82.8 and 40, and the Short Form 36 mean physical functioning and mental functioning scores were 55.8 and 65.6, respectively. There were 10 postoperative complications with 5 patients requiring additional surgery. Distal femoral arthroplasty seems to be a viable option for complex periprosthetic femoral fractures after total knee arthroplasty. However, considering the relatively high rate of complications, this procedure should be reserved for patients where alternative treatments are not possible.