全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的 探讨人工全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗方法及疗效. 方法 回顾性分析2005年7月至2010年6月收治且获得随访的13例人工全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折,其中男6例,女7例;年龄51 ～ 80岁,平均67岁;骨折按Vancouver分型:B1型3例,B2型5例,B3型3例,C型2例.分别用钢丝或钢缆环扎固定,异体皮质骨板加钢丝环扎;长柄假体翻修;记忆合金环抱器、锁定加压钢板固定.结果 所有患者术后随访9 ～ 30个月,平均16个月.骨折均愈合,时间4～7个月,平均4.8个月.患者无感染、畸形愈合、假体松动脱位、内固定断裂和深静脉血栓形成.根据Harris髋关节功能评分:优7例,良5例,可1例. 结论 全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折的治疗方案需结合骨折部位、假体有无松动、局部骨质量、身体状况而制定,原则是移位骨折要进行牢固固定、松动假体要进行翻修、严重骨缺损需要植骨处理.     

全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折1例

患者,男,82 岁,2019 年7 月10 日因右股骨颈骨折行右侧全髋关节置换术.出院后在家活动时不慎摔倒再次入院,行X线检查显示:右侧全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折( Vancouver B2型).腰硬联合麻醉下行右侧假体周围骨折切开复位钢板及钛缆环扎固定术+右侧全髋关节翻修术.     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的：分析全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的病因和治疗结果．探讨其治疗方法。方法：回顾性研究自1998年12月-2003年3月治疗并随访观察的11例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者，男8例，女3例，平均年龄为56岁(43-75岁)，采用Vancouver分型，A型2例，B2型7例．B3型1例，C型1例。采用非手术治疗5例；手术治疗6例，其中1例为非手术治疗后骨折畸形愈合行翻修术。采用长柄假体翻修联合异体皮质骨板固定5例．其中使用非骨水泥型远端固定假体4例．使用骨水泥型假体1例。采用切开复位内固定治疗1例。结果：所有病例均获随访，平均随访25．6个月(7～50个月)。9例骨折愈合，平均愈合时间4个月(3-6个月)，2例骨折未愈合。均为非手术治疗病例，手术治疗6例骨折均愈合。至目前为止，7例假体稳定，1例翻修术后出现连续的影像学透亮线．3例假体松动，假体稳定的患者功能好于假体松动者．假体稳定患者的Harris评分平均91分。所有异体皮质骨板在1年内均与宿主骨整台．没有异体皮质骨板骨折发生。结论：假体稳定的A型骨折可以采用非手术治疗。对于B1型和C型骨折，如无手术禁忌证，应行切开复位内固定术。对于假体松动的骨折患者，使用长柄远端固定非骨水混型假体联合异体皮质骨板是最佳的治疗方法。     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的分类和治疗进展

随着人工髋关节置换术在我国深入的开展，尤其是非骨水泥型假体的广泛应用，随之而来的股骨假体周围骨折亦日益多见。因其需要很长时间的随访，准确的发生率较难获得。Beal报道发生率是2，5％～27．8％，Sehwatz等报道人工关节翻修术后股骨假体周围骨折的发生率高于初次置换者，非骨水泥型假体置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的发生率（4．1％～27．8％）高于骨水泥型假体置换者（小于3％）。     

Vancouver B型股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的 探讨全髋关节置换术后Vancouver B型股骨假体周围骨折的治疗方法及其临床疗效.方法 收治全髋关节置换术后Vancouver B型股骨假体周围骨折7例,分别采用锁定加压钢板联合钢丝捆扎,生物型或骨水泥型长柄假体翻修联合钢丝捆扎、局部异体松质骨植骨,生物型长柄假体翻修联合钢丝捆扎、局部自体髂骨植骨治疗.结果 平均随访21个月,骨折均愈合,对位、对线好,平均愈合时间为3.5个月.末次随访时Harris评分平均84分,术后无感染、脱位、深静脉血栓等并发症发生.结论 Vancouver B型骨折应积极采取手术治疗,根据不同的骨折类型选择不同的治疗方法能取得较好的临床疗效.     

记忆合金抓握式接骨板治疗全髋置换术后股骨假体周围骨折

目的探讨记忆合金环抱器治疗髋关节置换术后假体周围股骨骨折的方法及疗效。方法 2008年3月至2010年1 2月我院采用记忆合金抓握式接骨板治疗全髋置换术后股骨假体周围骨折5例,其中男1例,女4例;年龄65～80岁,平均71岁。骨折均位于假体远端,按Vancouver假体周围骨折分型方法,A型1例,B1型2例,B2型2例。结果 5例患者均获随访,随访时间4～1 2个月,平均6.5个月。所有患者均获骨性愈合.假体稳定,无松动表现,髋、膝关节功能恢复较好。按Harris标准评分,优3例,良2例。结论采用记忆合金抓握式接骨板治疗全髋置换术后股骨假体周围骨折,固定牢固,骨折愈合好,是值得推荐的方法。     

人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的 探讨人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗方法及临床效果.方法 采用温哥华术后骨折分型标准,共收治人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折13例.结果 13例均获得随访,随访时髋关节功能按Harris评分:优4例,良5例,中3例,差1例.其中1例不愈合,其余12例获骨性愈合.结论 对此类骨折应根据近期影像资料进行周密的术前计划,结合骨折部位、假体稳定性及骨储备情况等因素,选择治疗方案.使用钢丝环扎、非骨水泥型长柄翻修联合应用异体皮质骨板及局部植骨是处理不同类型股骨假体周围骨折的有效治疗方法.     

髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的手术治疗

<正>2008年1月～2018年6月,我科对9例髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者行再次手术治疗,取得了满意疗效,报道如下。1材料与方法1. 1病例资料本组9例,男5例,女4例,年龄47～81岁。生物型假体7例,骨水泥假体2例。初次置换术后骨折时间1～14年。骨折Vancouver分型:B1型3例,B2型3例,B3型2例,C型1例。1. 2治疗方法腰麻或腰硬联合麻醉下手术。取大转子外侧纵行切口。B1型骨折因股骨假体柄无松动,直接行骨折复位,钢丝或钛缆环扎固定; B2型骨     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折治疗进展

全髋关节置换术(THA)后股骨假体周围骨折是临床上颇具挑战性的难题。Vancouver分型涉及股骨假体周围骨折位置及稳定性、假体松动情况、股骨近端骨量等,是临床上应用较多的分型方法。伴有假体松动的Vancouver B2型和B3型骨折占50%以上,因此预防和治疗THA后假体松动和(或)骨溶解很重要。针对股骨假体周围骨折内固定的生物力学研究等已成为热点,伴感染的股骨假体周围骨折、股骨假体周围多次骨折以及内固定失败的防治也见诸报道。该文就股骨假体周围骨折的治疗及预防措施的研究进展作一综述。     

人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗体会

目的总结人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折治疗的经验和体会。方法 2002年1月至2008年1月治疗人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的患者21例,19例患者采用手术治疗,按照Vancouver分型标准进行分类,选择不同的手术方式进行治疗,包括：锁定加压接骨板固定,钢缆固定,同时结合异体骨板固定,关节翻修术等。结果术后随访2～6年,平均5年,所有患者骨折均获得骨性愈合,骨折平均愈合时间为6个月（4～9个月）,在最后随访时均有比较好的髋关节功能,Harris评分平均86分（78～92分）。结论按照股骨假体周围骨折的类型,选用合适的治疗方法,全面术前计划,可以取得比较满意的治疗效果。     

Impaction bone grafting for periprosthetic fractures around a total hip arthroplasty

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures has been reported to be between 1 and 20.9% and appears to be on the rise. Fractures that occur around the femoral stem, particularly when the stem is loose or there is a loss of bone stock pose a technical challenge. These are rare injuries and there is considerable debate regarding their optimal treatment. Reconstruction with large segment endoprosthetic replacement is an acceptable solution for elderly patients who have limited functional demands and where the prosthesis is expected to outlive the patient. The younger patient poses a much greater challenge, the bone must be reconstituted and the femoral canal geometry must sufficiently restored to allow the stable insertion of a prosthesis. There are very few techniques that exist in this scenario. One such technique is impaction bone grafting and revision to a long smooth tapered cemented stem. This allows the restoration of bone stock and the stable insertion of a prosthesis. The aim of this article is to discuss the theory behind impaction bone grafting, the technical aspects and challenges of this technique, including fracture reduction methods, and to appraise all the literature available on impaction bone grafting for periprosthetic fractures.     

Salvage procedures and implant selection for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Periprosthetic femoral fractures with severe bone loss are challenging to treat. There are various treatment options, depending on the severity of the bone loss, age and activity of the patient and experience of the surgeon. This review focuses on the treatment of these Vancouver type B3 fractures with long-stem implants, proximal femoral replacements, allograft-prosthesis composites and cortical strut grafting.     

Classification of femoral periprosthetic fractures

Classification systems for fractures of the femur with a prosthetic hip in situ are diverse and complex. Most of them are based on the site of the fracture, which is not the most important differentiating factor in treatment planning. The Coventry classification system groups the periprosthetic fractures into 'happy hips' and 'unhappy hips' based on whether or not the stem is loose. In 'happy' hips, treatment only needs to address the fracture itself, unless the fixation has been compromised by the fracture. In the 'unhappy hips', revision of the prosthesis is recommended.     

Case report: A 10 years follow-up of periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip arthroplasty in osteopetrosis

Osteopetrosis is an inherited disorder characterized by increased bone density and brittle bone quality. Degenerative changes often occur after the age of 40 in patients with osteopetrosis. Operative intervention is the primary treatment option if the clinical manifestation of secondary osteoarthritis is severe. A 44-year-old male suffering autosomal dominant osteopetrosis and progressive unilateral hip osteoarthritis required a total hip arthroplasty. However, there were several technical challenges associated with this procedure including creating a femoral medullary canal and developing a Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture postoperatively. To afford some experience for the management of similar cases, we here present our technical solutions to these problems.     

初次人工髋关节置换术中假体周围股骨劈裂11例

2008年1月-2012年12月，我科采用人工髋关节置换术共581例，术中发生假体周围股骨劈裂11例，发生率为1．9%。笔者分析其原因并提出防治措施，总结经验如下。1．1病例资料本组11例，男5例，女6例，年龄34—71岁。病程1d-15年。病因：股骨颈骨折2例，股骨头坏死9例。手术方式：全髋置换术8例（全生物型固定），股骨头置换术3例（生物型固定）。劈裂部位：假体柄近端对应处劈裂（MayoI型）6例，假体柄体部对应处劈裂（MayoⅡ型）5例，均为生物型固定锥形假体柄。11例中2例发生于磨锉髓腔时，9例发生于假体置入过程中。     

Revision hip arthroplasty as a treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures without bone grafting

Background:

It is conventionally considered that bone grafting is mandatory for Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) although few clinical studies have challenged the concept previously. The aim of the current study was to investigate the radiographic and functional results of Vancouver B3 PFF treated by revision total hip or hemiarthroplasty (HA) in combination with appropriate internal fixation without bone grafting.

Materials and Methods:

12 patients with Vancouver B3 PFF were treated by revision THA/HA without bone grafting between March 2004 and May 2008. There were nine females and three males, with an average age of 76 years. PFFs were following primary THA/HA in nine patients and following revision THA/HA in three. Postoperative followup was 5.5 years on average (range, 3.5-6.5 years). At the final followup, radiographic results were evaluated with Beals and Tower''s criteria and functional outcomes were evaluated using the Merle d’Aubigné scoring system.

Results:

All fractures healed within an average of 20 weeks (range, 12-28 weeks). There was no significant deformity and shortening of the affected limb and the implant was stable. The average Merle d’Aubigné score was 15.8. Walking ability was regained in 10 patients without additional assistance, while 2 patients had to use crutches. There were 2 patients with numbness of lateral thigh, possibly due to injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. There were no implant failures, dislocation and refractures.

Conclusions:

Revision THA/HA in combination with appropriate internal fixation without bone grafting is a good option for treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures in the elderly.     

Distal femoral replacement in periprosthetic fracture around total knee arthroplasty

Introduction

Total knee arthroplasty is a common orthopaedic procedure in the UK; consequently, revision surgery and periprosthetic fractures are increasing in incidence. Strategies for management of these cases include non-operative strategies, internal plate fixation and revision of the distal femoral component. One under-reported practice is to perform distal femoral replacement in cases with poor distal femoral bone stock.

Materials and methods

The department's electronic database was searched for all patients undergoing revision of total knee arthroplasty. From these, all patients having distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic fracture around the distal femoral component using the Stryker Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS) implant were filtered. A retrospective analysis of the patient notes was performed to examine the patient demographics, surgical factors and postoperative complications. Postoperative scores were performed for these patients.

Results

From 2005 onwards, 11 patients (mean age 81 years, range 61–90 years) had their implants revised with a distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic fracture with associated poor bone stock. Follow up was for a mean of 33 months (range 4–72 months). One of these patients died of causes unrelated to their operation. Of the rest, all implants survived without the need of re-operation. The mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score for these patients was 22.5 (range 5–34).

Conclusions

Distal femoral replacement for patients with fracture around a total knee arthroplasty has been performed in our department with few complications and acceptable functional outcomes. It is a technically challenging operation and it should be a salvage procedure reserved for patients with poor bone stock and low demands where other methods of fixation are not suitable.

Level of evidence

IV.     

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.     

Grafting for periprosthetic femoral fractures: strut, impaction or femoral replacement

Peri-prosthetic fractures are technically demanding to treat, as they require the skills of revision arthroplasty as well as those of trauma surgery. [Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:857-65.] reporting on 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures found that the annual incidence varied between 0.045% and 0.13% for all THAs performed in Sweden and that the accumulated incidence for the primary hip arthroplasties was 0.4% while for the revision arthroplasties was 2.1% [Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:857-65.]. The elderly population is particularly vulnerable to low energy periprosthetic fractures attributed to osteopenia or osteoporosis leaving limited reconstruction options to the hip revision surgeon. Bone grafting in the form of autograft has well recognized limitations and allograft represents the gold standard of bone augmentation in the majority of the cases. Allograft can be used as morselised in the form of impaction grafting, reconstructing the bone from within out, or in the form of structural allograft. In the latter case, strut onlay plates or whole proximal femoral allografts can be used to augment the deficient bone or to totally replace it respectively. Immune reaction and disease transmission along with delayed revascularization of the cortical allograft can cause failure of the construct in the long term; however, the results to date from their use are promising. We here present an overview of the literature on the use of available bone grafts in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.     

Retrograde cement removal in periprosthetic fractures following hip arthroplasty

Introduction Revision of cemented hip arthroplasty after periprosthetic fractures of the femur is a demanding procedure. Many different technical devices have been developed for this purpose. This paper presents a new surgical technique of cement removal avoiding excessive exposure of the fracture site. Materials and methods In six patients with periprosthetic fractures of the femur following hip arthroplasty (Johansson Type II and III) cement removal was performed by means of advancing a retrograde nail through the intercondylar notch of the knee. Results In all cases the cement was removed completely. Intraoperative complications or significant knee problems were not observed. Conclusion The intracondylar approach provides a simple, rapid and less invasive technique for cement removal in revision hip arthroplasty.