nach oben

International Orthopaedics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2015 | Review Article

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review

verfasst von: Matthew P. Abdel, Umberto Cottino, Tad M. Mabry

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 10/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review.

Methods

This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion.

Results

Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA.

Conclusions

Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 CrossRefPubMed

Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:128–133. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00155 CrossRefPubMed

Lindahl H (2007) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 38:651–654. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.048 CrossRefPubMed

Thien TM, Chatziagorou G, Garellick G, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Makela K, Overgaard S, Pedersen A, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Karrholm J (2014) Periprosthetic femoral fracture within two years after total hip replacement: analysis of 437,629 operations in the nordic arthroplasty register association database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96, e167. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00643 CrossRefPubMed

Streubel PN (2013) Mortality after periprosthetic femur fractures. J Knee Surg 26:27–30. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1333905 CrossRefPubMed

Fuchtmeier B, Galler M, Muller F (2014) Mid-term results of 121 periprosthetic femoral fractures: increased failure and mortality within but not after one postoperative year. J Arthroplasty. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.11.006 PubMed

Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM 2nd, Malchau H (2007) Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2658–2662. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01538 CrossRefPubMed

Pavlou G, Panteliadis P, Macdonald D, Timperley JA, Gie G, Bancroft G, Tsiridis E (2011) A review of 202 periprosthetic fractures--stem revision and allograft improves outcome for type B fractures. Hip Int 21:21–29CrossRefPubMed

Langenhan R, Trobisch P, Ricart P, Probst A (2012) Aggressive surgical treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures can reduce mortality: comparison of open reduction and internal fixation versus a modular prosthesis nail. J Orthop Trauma 26:80–85. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821d6f55 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Laurer HL, Wutzler S, Possner S, Geiger EV, El Saman A, Marzi I, Frank J (2011) Outcome after operative treatment of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: open reduction and internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:983–989. doi:10.1007/s00402-011-1272-y CrossRefPubMed

11.

Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMed

12.

Haidukewych GJ, Langford J, Liporace FA (2013) Revision for periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:368–376PubMed

13.

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

14.

Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N (2012) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1047–1050. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.11.021 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Naughton M (2014) Periprosthetic fractures around a cementless hydroxyapatite-coated implant: a new fracture pattern is described. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:604–610. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3137-x PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Haidukewych GJ, Langford JR, Liporace FA (2013) Revision for periprosthetic fractures of the hip and knee. Instr Course Lect 62:333–340PubMed

17.

Pritchett JW (2001) Fracture of the greater trochanter after hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res:221–226

18.

Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Chonko DJ, Dodds KL, Adams JB (2004) Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years. J Arthroplasty 19:17–21CrossRefPubMed

19.

Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP (2011) The pseudo A(LT) periprosthetic fracture: it's really a B2. Orthopedics 34:e479–e481. doi:10.3928/01477447-20110714-27 PubMed

20.

Yasen AT, Haddad FS (2014) The management of type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: when to fix and when to revise. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2617-2 PubMed

21.

McElfresh EC, Coventry MB (1974) Femoral and pelvic fractures after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56:483–492PubMed

22.

Jensen JS, Barfod G, Hansen D, Larsen E, Linde F, Menck H, Olsen B (1988) Femoral shaft fracture after hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 59:9–13CrossRefPubMed

23.

Scott RD, Turner RH, Leitzes SM, Aufranc OE (1975) Femoral fractures in conjunction with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:494–501PubMed

24.

Moazen M, Mak JH, Etchels LW, Jin Z, Wilcox RK, Jones AC, Tsiridis E (2014) Periprosthetic femoral fracture--a biomechanical comparison between Vancouver type B1 and B2 fixation methods. J Arthroplasty 29:495–500. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.010 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pike J, Davidson D, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, O'Brien PJ, Masri BA (2009) Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:677–688PubMed

26.

Lindahl H, Malchau H, Oden A, Garellick G (2006) Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 88:26–30. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.17029 CrossRef

27.

Haidar SG, Goodwin MI (2005) Dynamic compression plate fixation for post-operative fractures around the tip of a hip prosthesis. Injury 36:417–423. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2004.07.032 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (1998) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect 47:237–242PubMed

29.

Kato T, Otani T, Sugiyama H, Hayama T, Katsumata S, Marumo K (2015) Cementless total hip arthroplasty in hip dysplasia with an extensively porous-coated cylindrical stem modified for Asians: a 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.033 PubMed

30.

Shen B, Huang Q, Yang J, Zhou ZK, Kang PD, Pei FX (2014) Extensively coated non-modular stem used in two-stage revision for infected total hip arthroplasty: mid-term to long-term follow-up. Orthop Surg 6:103–109. doi:10.1111/os.12107 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Thomsen PB, Jensen NJ, Kampmann J, Baek Hansen T (2013) Revision hip arthroplasty with an extensively porous-coated stem - excellent long-term results also in severe femoral bone stock loss. Hip Int 23:352–358. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000032 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ (2014) Periprosthetic femur fractures treated with modular fluted, tapered stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:599–603. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2936-4 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

33.

Van Houwelingen AP, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS (2013) High survival of modular tapered stems for proximal femoral bone defects at 5 to 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:454–462. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2552-8 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

34.

Amanatullah DF, Howard JL, Siman H, Trousdale RT, Mabry TM, Berry DJ (2015) Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone loss using a fluted tapered modular femoral component. Bone Joint J 97-B:312–317. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.34684 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh AJ, Robinson J, Cornell CN, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS (2014) Reproducible fixation with a tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty at 8–15 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty 29:214–218. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.035 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Munro JT, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2014) Tapered fluted titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:590–598. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3087-3 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

37.

Mulroy WF, Harris WH (1996) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:325–330PubMed

38.

Davis CM 3rd, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2003) Cemented revision of failed uncemented femoral components of total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:1264–1269PubMed

39.

Hnat WP, Conway JS, Malkani AL, Yakkanti MR, Voor MJ (2009) The effect of modular tapered fluted stems on proximal stress shielding in the human femur. J Arthroplasty 24:957–962. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.07.013 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Fink B, Urbansky K, Schuster P (2014) Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. Bone Joint J 96-B:889–895. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.33280 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Berry DJ (1999) Total hip arthroplasty in patients with proximal femoral deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res:262–272

42.

Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P (2003) A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 18:94–97. doi:10.1054/arth.2003.50083 CrossRefPubMed

43.

McInnis DP, Horne G, Devane PA (2006) Femoral revision with a fluted, tapered, modular stem seventy patients followed for a mean of 3.9 years. J Arthroplasty 21:372–380. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.08.022 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Rodriguez JA, Fada R, Murphy SB, Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS (2009) Two-year to five-year follow-up of femoral defects in femoral revision treated with the link MP modular stem. J Arthroplasty 24:751–758. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.011 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Schuh A, Werber S, Holzwarth U, Zeiler G (2004) Cementless modular hip revision arthroplasty using the MRP Titan Revision Stem: outcome of 79 hips after an average of 4 years' follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:306–309. doi:10.1007/s00402-004-0656-7 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Tamvakopoulos GS, Servant CT, Clark G, Ivory JP (2007) Medium-term follow-up series using a modular distal fixation prosthesis to address proximal femoral bone deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5-to 9-year follow-up study. Hip Int 17:143–149PubMed

47.

Weiss RJ, Beckman MO, Enocson A, Schmalholz A, Stark A (2011) Minimum 5-year follow-up of a cementless, modular, tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:16–23. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.009 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Wirtz DC, Heller KD, Holzwarth U, Siebert C, Pitto RP, Zeiler G, Blencke BA, Forst R (2000) A modular femoral implant for uncemented stem revision in THR. Int Orthop 24:134–138PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

49.

Berry DJ (2003) Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res:224–231. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000096821.67494.f6

50.

Wimmer MD, Randau TM, Deml MC, Ascherl R, Noth U, Forst R, Gravius N, Wirtz D, Gravius S (2013) Impaction grafting in the femur in cementless modular revision total hip arthroplasty: a descriptive outcome analysis of 243 cases with the MRP-TITAN revision implant. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:19. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-19 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

51.

Ten Have BL, Brouwer RW, van Biezen FC, Verhaar JA (2012) Femoral revision surgery with impaction bone grafting: 31 hips followed prospectively for ten to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94:615–618. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.27909 CrossRef

52.

Oshima S, Yasunaga Y, Yamasaki T, Yoshida T, Hori J, Ochi M (2012) Midterm results of femoral impaction bone grafting with an allograft combined with hydroxyapatite in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:470–476. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.012 CrossRefPubMed

53.

Mayle RE Jr, Paprosky WG (2012) Massive bone loss: allograft-prosthetic composites and beyond. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94:61–64. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30791 CrossRef

54.

Min L, Peng J, Duan H, Zhang W, Zhou Y, Tu C (2014) Uncemented allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal femur. Indian J Orthop 48:289–295. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.132521 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

55.

Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG (2013) Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:601–612. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-21-10-601 CrossRefPubMed

56.

Howie DW, McGee MA, Callary SA, Carbone A, Stamenkov RB, Bruce WJ, Findlay DM (2011) A preclinical study of stem subsidence and graft incorporation after femoral impaction grafting using porous hydroxyapatite as a bone graft extender. J Arthroplasty 26:1050–1056. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.05.007 CrossRefPubMed

57.

Hartman CW, Garvin KL (2011) Femoral fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:2311–2322. doi:10.2106/JBJS.9324icl CrossRefPubMed

58.

Babis G, Sakellariou V, O’Connor M, Hanssen A, Sim F (2010) Proximal femoral allograft-prosthesis composites in revision hip replacement: a 12-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 92:349–355CrossRef

59.

Parvizi J, Sim FH (2004) Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res:169–175

60.

Blackely H, Gross A (2002) Proximal femoral allografts for reconstruction of bone stock in revision arthroplasty of the hip. A nine to fifteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol 84:133

61.

Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N, Wade F, Trappler R, Hozack WJ, Sim FH (2007) Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg 89:1036–1043CrossRefPubMed

62.

Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J, Frederix PR, Simon JP, Broos PL (2009) An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91:1424–1430. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B11.22292 CrossRef

63.

Learmonth ID (2004) The management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86:13–19

Titel: Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review
verfasst von: Matthew P. Abdel
Umberto Cottino
Tad M. Mabry
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 10/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2979-0

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Management of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty: a review

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2015

The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

Periprosthetic fractures: concepts of biomechanical in vitro investigations

Modern teaching of military surgery: why and how to prepare the orthopaedic surgeons before deployment? The French experience

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with modular stems

The use of megaprosthesis in the treatment of periprosthetic knee fractures

A comparative study between multiple cannulated screws and dynamic hip screw for fixation of femoral neck fracture in adults

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie