Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

HIP PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES



Abstract

Objective: Descriptive retrospective analysis of hip peri-prosthetic fractures treated surgically from 2000 to 2005 analysing risk factors and Results:

Material and Methods: 31 patients with a mean age of 77 years (56–94) were operated of a periprosthetic fracture which happened 73 months (0–300) after the index arthroplasty

Fractures were classified following the Vancouver system: 1 patient presented a type Al(3%), 4 a B1(13%), 23 suffered a B2(74%), 1 a B3(3%) and 2 patients presented a type C(6%)

The risk factors described in the literature were evaluated, as well as the different types of treatment with their clinical and radiological results.

Risk factors:

  • Personal: 21(68%) patients were women

  • Previous condition of arthroplasty: 22(71%) non cemented, 23(74%) total prosthesis, 3(10%) revision surgery; 13(54%) presented osteointegration, 2(8%) stable fibrous fixation and 9 (38%) were unstable; in (7%) there was subsidence

  • Surgical technique: 11(52%) patients had insufficient size of the implant and 15 stems were in varus (54%)

  • Bone status: 5 femur (20%) presented stress risers and 29(97%) diffuse osteopenia

  • Polyethylene wear: 10(50%) of THA

  • Osteolysis was observed in 21 patients (70%): 19(90%) in zone 1, 4(19%) in zone 2, 3(14%) in zone 3, 2(10%) in zone 4, 2(10%) in zone 5, 4(19%) in zone 6 and 15(71%) in zone 7. 5(24%) patients presented osteolysis in one zone, 9(43%) in two zones, 4(19%) in three zones, 2(10%) in four zones and 1(5%) in six zones

  • Type of treatment: 19(61%) patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) without revision of the prosthesis, 11(35%) with revision surgery plus ORIF and 1(3%) with a resection arthroplasty. Bone graft was used in only 1(3%) patient

  • Type of osteosynthesis: 16(52%) only cables, 1(3%) cables and plates, 2(6%) plates and screws, 11(35%) plates and cables and screws, 1(3%) intramedullary nail

Clinical results:

  • There were 0(0%) infections and 0(0%) exitus but 7(23%) patients suffered postoperative medical complications

  • The mean time for allow weight-bearing was 3 months (2–6)

  • For the 25 patients that achieved the complete follow up, maximum recovery was recorded after 9 months (3–13); 24(89%) patients recovered their previous status and 15(60%) had no pain. 15 patients maintained the instrumental level before the fracture and 10(66%) recovered it

Radiological results:

  • The mean time for fracture union was 6 months (3–18). At the end of follow-up 1(4%) patient presented non-union

  • 0(0%) patients presented mal-union, 2(8%) a refracture, and 6(24%) evolved to implant loosening

Conclusions:

  1. Patients with periprosthetic fractures present a high number of previous local risk factors

  2. Surgical treatment achieves a very low mortality rate and a good/excellent clinical result

  3. Overuse of ORIF without prosthesis revision obtains consolidation in most cases but with a high risk of loosening

Correspondence should be addressed to Ms Larissa Welti, Scientific Secretary, EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH-8005 Zürich, Switzerland