nach oben

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

Erschienen in:

23.01.2021 | Original Article

Peri-implant femoral fractures in hip fracture patients treated with osteosynthesis: a retrospective cohort study of 1965 patients

verfasst von: Mark Kruse, Jabbar Mohammed, Arkan Sayed-Noor, Olof Wolf, Gunnar Holmgren, Robin Nordström, Sead Crnalic, Olof Sköldenberg, Sebastian Mukka

Erschienen in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background and purpose

There are few studies on incidence rates, treatment and outcomes for peri-implant femoral fractures (PIFF) in the proximity of osteosynthesis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of PIFF following osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures.

Patients and methods

This retrospective cohort study comprised a consecutive series of hip fracture patients aged 50 years or older and operated with osteosynthesis between 2003 and 2015. Patients were followed-up until 2018, removal of implants or death, for a mean of 4 years (range 0–15). Data on age, sex, housing, hip complications, and reoperations were recorded. The risk of PIFFs was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. In patients with two fractures during the study period, only the first fracture was included.

Results

A total of 1965 osteosynthesis procedures were performed, of which 382 were cephalomedullary nails (CMN), 933 sliding hip devices (SHD) and 650 pins. Mean age was 80 years (range 50–104), 65% of patients were women. A total of 41 PIFFs occurred during the study period. The cumulative incidence of peri-implant fractures was 0.8% for CMN, 2.7% (HR 2.995% CI, 0.87–9.6, p = 0.08) for SHD and 2.0% (HR 2.3 95% CI, 0.6–8.1, p = 0.2) for pins. PIFFs occurred after a mean of 27 months (range 0–143). The 1-year mortality was 34% following PIFF. The majority was treated surgically (66%, 27/41) and the reoperation rate was 15% (4/27).

Conclusion

In this retrospective cohort study, in contrast to previous reports, we found a tendency to a higher cumulative incidence of PIFFs for SHD compared to modern CMN. Our results show cumulative incidences of PIFFs comparable to those described for periprosthetic femur fractures after hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

Coveney EI, McKeown D, Quinlan JF, Cleary M. A healthy decline in age- and sex-specific incidence of hip fractures in the elderly in the Republic of Ireland. Surgeon. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2019.11.006.CrossRefPubMed

Hagen G, Magnussen J, Tell G, Omsland T. Estimating the future burden of hip fractures in Norway. A NOREPOS study. Bone. 2020;131:115156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2019.115156.CrossRefPubMed

Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM 2nd, Malchau H. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(12):2658–62.CrossRefPubMed

Lang NW, Joestl J, Payr S, Platzer P, Sarahrudi K. Secondary femur shaft fracture following treatment with cephalomedullary nail: a retrospective single-center experience. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(9):1271–8.CrossRefPubMed

Müller F, Galler M, Zellner M, Bäuml C, Marzouk A, Füchtmeier B. Peri-implant femoral fractures: the risk is more than three times higher within PFN compared with DHS. Injury. 2016;47(10):2189–94.CrossRefPubMed

Chan LWM, Gardner AW, Wong MK, Chua K, Kwek EBK. Non-prosthetic peri-implant fractures: classification, management and outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(6):791–802.CrossRefPubMed

Ma KL, Wang X, Luan FJ, Xu HT, Fang Y, Min J, Luan HX, Yang F, Zheng H, He SJ. Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(8):859–66.CrossRefPubMed

Liu M, Yang Z, Pei F, Huang F, Chen S, Xiang Z. A meta-analysis of the Gamma nail and dynamic hip screw in treating peritrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop. 2010;34:323–8.CrossRefPubMed

Bhandari M, Schemitsch E, Jönsson A, Zlowodzki M, Haidukewych GJ. Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(6):460–4.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;8(9):CD000093.

11.

Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373–9.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kazi HA, Whitehouse SL, Howell JR, Timperley AJ. Not all cemented hips are the same: a register-based (NJR) comparison of taper-slip and composite beam femoral stems. Acta Orthop. 2019;6:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1582680.CrossRef

13.

Mohammed J, Mukka S, Hedbeck CJ, Chammout G, Gordon M, Sköldenberg O. Reduced periprosthetic fracture rate when changing from a tapered polished stem to an anatomical stem for cemented hip arthroplasty: an observational prospective cohort study with a follow-up of 2 years. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(5):427–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1624339.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Wang CJ, Brown CJ, Yettram AL, Procter P. Intramedullary nails: some design features of the distal end. Med Eng Phys. 2003;25:789–94.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Collinge CA, Beltran CP. Does modern nail geometry affect positioning in the distal femur of elderly patients with hip fractures? A comparison of otherwise identical intramedullary nails with a 200 versus 150 cm radius of curvature. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(6):299–302.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Matre K, Havelin LI, Gjertsen JE, Vinje T, Espehaug B, Fevang JM. Sliding hip screw versus IM nail in reverse oblique trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. A study of 2716 patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Injury. 2013;44(6):735–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.010.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lindvall E, Ghaffar S, Martirosian A, Husak L. Short versus long intramedullary nails in the treatment of pertrochanteric hip fractures: incidence of ipsilateral fractures and costs associated with each implant. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30:119–24.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sanders D, Bryant D, Tieszer C, et al. A multicenter randomized control trial comparing a novel intramedullary device (InterTAN) versus conventional treatment (sliding hip screw) of geriatric hip fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31:1–8.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Okcu G, Ozkayin N, Okta C, Topcu I, Aktuglu K. Which implant is better for treating reverse obliquity fractures of the proximal femur: a standard or long nail? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2768–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Zhang Y, Zhang S, Wang S, Zhang H, Zhang W, Liu P, Ma J, Pervaiz N, Wang J. Long and short intramedullary nails for fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures (OTA 31–A1, A2 and A3): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(5):685–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Norris R, Bhattacharjee D, Parker MJ. Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients. Injury. 2012;43:706–11.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sato Y, Inose M, Higuchi I, Higuchi F, Kondo I. Changes in the supporting muscles of the fractured hip in elderly women. Bone. 2002;30(1):325–30.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Visschedijk J, Achterberg W, Van Balen R, Hertogh C. Fear of falling after hip fracture: a systematic review of measurement instruments, prevalence, interventions, and related factors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(9):1739–48.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zhu Q, Xu X, Yang X, Chen X, Wang L, Liu C, Lin P. Intramedullary nails versus sliding hip screws for AO/OTA 31–A2 trochanteric fractures in adults: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;43:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.05.042.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(1):59–62.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lauer MS, D’Agostino RB Sr. The randomized registry trial—the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(17):1579–81.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Mukka S, Sjöholm P, Chammout G, Kelly-Pettersson P, Sayed-Noor A, Sköldenberg O. External validity of the HOPE-Trial-hemiarthroplasty compared to total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in octogenarians. JBJS Open Access. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00061.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Tucker A, Donnelly KJ, Rowan C, McDonald S, Foster AP. Is the best plate a nail? A review of 3230 unstable intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(2):53–60.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Whitehouse MR, Berstock JR, Kelly MB, Gregson CL, Judge A, Sayers A, Chesser TJ. Higher 30-day mortality associated with the use of intramedullary nails compared with sliding hip screws for the treatment of trochanteric hip fractures: a prospective national registry study. Bone Joint J. 2019;101(1):83–91.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Peri-implant femoral fractures in hip fracture patients treated with osteosynthesis: a retrospective cohort study of 1965 patients
verfasst von: Mark Kruse
Jabbar Mohammed
Arkan Sayed-Noor
Olof Wolf
Gunnar Holmgren
Robin Nordström
Sead Crnalic
Olof Sköldenberg
Sebastian Mukka
Publikationsdatum: 23.01.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1863-9933
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-9941
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01596-7

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Peri-implant femoral fractures in hip fracture patients treated with osteosynthesis: a retrospective cohort study of 1965 patients