Periprosthetic femoral fracture - an interdisciplinary challenge

Prehabilitation in a Periprosthetic Fracture of the Femur: A Case Report

Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) are related to orthopaedic implants like internal fixators, replacement devices, etc. In this case report, we discussed a 55-year-old male patient who came to our tertiary care hospital with complaints of pain and swelling over the left hip for six months. After radiological investigations, he was diagnosed with a left PPF of the femur with posterior dislocation. He was referred to the musculoskeletal physiotherapy department for in-patient rehabilitation before surgery. He received strengthening exercises for lower limb, back, and abdominal muscles, pain management, gait training, etc. for two weeks before his decided surgery date. The patient showed improved strength and maintained his range. There were an improved Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and a Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) score, which signified a reduction in pain and improved functional independence due to enhanced lower limb function, respectively.

Peri- and Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Current Concepts and New Developments for Internal Fixation

Treatment of peri- and interprosthetic fractures represents a challenge in orthopedic trauma surgery. Multiple factors such as osteoporosis, polymedication and comorbidities impede therapy and the rehabilitation of this difficult fracture entity. This article summarizes current concepts and highlights new developments for the internal fixation of periprosthetic fractures. Since the elderly are unable to follow partial weight bearing, stable solutions are required. Therefore, a high primary stability is necessary. Numerous options, such as new angular stable plate systems with additional options for variable angle screw positioning, already exist and are in the process of being further improved. Lately, individually produced custom-made implants are offering interesting alternatives to treat periprosthetic fractures.

[Individual aspects in eldery patients with fragility fractures]

BACKGROUND

Due to our ageing population, the number of elderly patients who are treated in the emergency department due to low-energy trauma (e.g., tripping) continues to rise. These minor accidents often result in fragility fractures classically located in the proximal humerus, distal radius, spine, pelvis, and near the hip joint. Pre-existing conditions, polypharmacy, and general frailty increase the risk of fragility fractures in this patient population.

METHODS

Geriatric trauma fractures and especially insufficiency fractures of the posterior pelvic ring are often difficult to diagnose by plain X‑ray. Therefore, in geriatric trauma patients, cross-sectional imaging, e.g., computed tomography (CT), dual-energy CT (DECT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), should be considered early for reliable evaluation of a suspected fracture. This also allows for the identification of older fractures. Particularly in cognitively impaired elderly patients, difficult examination conditions or an unclear fall event, cross-sectional imaging is often indicated. However, this may also involve risks, e.g., use of contrast medium in patients with impaired renal function, so that each case must be considered individually. Furthermore, the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, which is an underlying disease that leads to fragility fractures, is of particular importance. In the diagnostic workup, measurement of bone density using dual energy X‑ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the standard method according to guidelines. In specific situations, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) may also be used.

CONCLUSION

Due to the special challenges of correctly detecting fragility fractures and being able to quickly initiate adequate therapy, good cooperation between radiologists and trauma surgeons is necessary.

Mortality, Risk Factors and Risk Assessment after Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a devastating complication. Here, the authors aimed to determine the influence of the timing of surgery as a risk factor for mortality and poor postoperative outcome in patients suffering from PFF. A retrospective descriptive analysis of patients treated for PFF between January 2010 and March 2018 was performed. In addition to patient and treatment characteristics, we assessed mortality rates and postoperative functional outcome by using the Harris Hip and WOMAC score. One-year mortality after PFF was 10.7%. Delayed surgery after 48 h did not negatively influence mortality after PFF. The postoperative hospital stay did not influence the mortality rate, nor did it correlate with medical scores of comorbidities, general health or functionalities. Cementation of stem correlated negatively with the WOMAC score. Deceased patients had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, while American society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) scores did not show a significant difference. There were no differences between ORIF and revision arthroplasty. In conclusion, delayed surgery after 48 h does not negatively influence mortality after PFF. The CCI seems to be a suitable tool to assess patients’ risk for increased mortality after PFF, while the usually used ASA score is not able to achieve a relevant risk assessment.

[Locking plate fixation of distal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Clinical outcome and mortality]

Hintergrund

Die Versorgung distaler periprothetischer Femurfrakturen (PFF) stellt aufgrund des geriatrischen Patientenkollektivs eine große interdisziplinäre Herausforderung dar und erfolgt (abhängig vom Frakturtyp) häufig mittels winkelstabiler Plattenosteosynthese (WPO), wobei bisher nur wenige Daten zum klinischen Outcome existieren. Ziel der Untersuchung ist die Identifikation von Risikofaktoren für ein schlechtes Outcome und erhöhte Mortalität.

Methoden

In dieser retrospektiven Studie wurden 36 Fälle mit distaler PFF untersucht. Eingeschlossen wurden nur Versorgungen mit WPO. Neben relevanten Vorerkrankungen (ASA-Score, Charlson Index), der Frakturmorphologie und relevante Komplikationen, wurden u.a. die 1- und 3-Jahres-Mortalität, sowie das klinische Outcome mit Hilfe des Lysholm-Scores erfasst.

Ergebnisse

Die 1- und 3- Jahres Mortalität betrug 9% bzw. 26%, wobei dies ausschließlich ASA 3 und 4 Patienten betraf. Der Lysholm Score zeigte eine hohe Variabilität (65 ± 27 Punkte) mit höheren Werten in der ASA 1-2 Subgruppe (82 vs. 63 Punkte) aber unabhängig vom Frakturtyp. Als Risikofaktoren für die 3-Jahres Mortalität konnten der präoperative ASA-Score, der Charlson Komorbiditätsindex und das Patientenalter identifiziert werden.

Diskussion

Die dargestellte Fallserie weist eine hohe absolute Mortalitätsrate auf, auch wenn diese im Vergleich zu bisher publizierten Daten, etwas geringer war. Die Rate an Sekundärdislokationen, fehlender Frakturheilung oder Folgeoperationen war ebenfalls gering. Die WPO erscheint daher als geeignete Versorgung für Frakturen mit stabiler Prothese. Jedoch besteht eine hohe Variabilität im klinischen Outcome unabhängig vom Frakturtyp, sowie signifikant erhöhte Mortalitätsraten bei vorerkrankten Patienten.

The location of the fracture determines the better solution, osteosynthesis or revision, in periprosthetic femoral fractures

Purpose

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are difficult to treat, but few reports have included many periprosthetic femoral fractures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the trends and characteristics of a large number of periprosthetic femoral fractures and to determine the best treatment strategy for such fractures.

Methods

The fracture type according to the Vancouver classification, the stem fixation style of previous surgery, the elapsed time from previous surgery, and the treatment method for periprosthetic fractures of 51 patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures who were seen between 2006 and 2018 were investigated.

Results

The types of fractures according to the Vancouver classification were: type A 5.9%, type B1 47%, type B2 20%, type B3 2.0%, and type C 25%. Of the previous surgeries, 76% were cementless fixation, and 24% were cemented fixation. The mean duration from previous surgery to periprosthetic femoral fracture was 8 years and 7 months (1-358 months), and injury within 1 year from previous surgery was most commonly observed (24%). As treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures, conservative treatment was performed in 8%, and surgery was performed in 92%. Of the surgery cases, 53% underwent osteosynthesis, and 39% underwent revision surgery. Of type B1 surgery cases, 58% were treated with osteosynthesis, and 33% underwent revision surgery, although type B1 had no stem loosening.

Conclusion

Many periprosthetic femoral fractures occurred within 1 year after the previous surgery. Therefore, preventive measures for periprosthetic femoral fractures should be started immediately after total hip replacement. In addition, revision surgery was performed even if the stem was not loosened in cases where it was judged that sufficient osteosynthesis could not be performed.

Management of periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty- a retrospective study to decide when to fix or when to revise?

PURPOSE

Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty are relatively rare complication comprises to 0.3-2.5%. But these injuries are often complex and challenging for the surgeons due to ageing population in conjunction with severe osteoporosis. The management option varies from conservative to internal fixation or revision surgery. Thus this study was conducted to analyze the results of various methods of treatment of periprosthetic fractures following TKA and to form the optimal treatment guidelines for fixation or revision.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

51 cases diagnosed with periprosthetic fracture were enrolled and underwent surgical intervention. Type of primary prosthesis, interval between TKA and periprosthetic fracture, type of fracture, prosthesis stability and mode of fixation of fracture, any revision surgery and complication were noted.

RESULTS

The mean age of all patients was 65.89 years. The mean interval between the index surgery and periprosthetic fracture was 6 years (Range 2 months to 10 years) in male and 18.5 months (Range 4 days to 7 years) in female. 44 (86%) fractures were femoral, 4 (8%) fractures were tibial and 3 (6%) fractures were of patella. The mean knee society score (KSS) & oxford knee score (OKS) were found to be good for revision group as compared to the fixation group at final follow up.

CONCLUSION

In presence of poor bone stock, far distal fracture configuration, comminution, severe osteoporosis, difficulty in achieving stability with plates & old age-revision TKA is a viable option with stemmed components.

[Traumatic periprosthetic fractures in patients with total hip replacement]

The incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures is increasing due to the increase in endoprosthetic hip replacements. These fractures require a staged and individual treatment concept with the aim of mobilization of the patient as early as possible. The special challenge in the diagnostics is to identify pre-existing signs of loosening of the prosthesis. When the prosthesis is still firmly fixed femoral fractures can be treated with angular stable osteosynthesis. Loosened stems usually have to be revised, mostly in combination with osteosynthesis. Fractures around the acetabulum with a fixed cup can be treated nonoperatively or with osteosynthesis, while loosened cups have to be revised. In revision surgery the stabilization of the dorsal column is crucial for a successful outcome.

A new classification of TKA periprosthetic femur fractures considering the implant type

Background

The treatment aims of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the distal femur are a gentle stabilization, an early load-bearing capacity and a rapid postoperative mobilization of the affected patients. For the therapy planning of PPF a standardized classification is necessary which leads to a clear and safe therapy recommendation. Despite different established classifications, there is none that includes the types of prosthesis used in the assessment. For this purpose, the objective of this work is to create a new more extensive fracture and implant-related classification of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur based on available classifications which allows distinct therapeutic recommendations.

Methods

In a retrospective analysis all patients who were treated in the University Hospital Leipzig from 2010 to 2016 due to a distal femur fracture with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were established. To create an implant-associated classification the cases were discussed in a panel of experienced orthopaedists and well-practiced traumatologists with a great knowledge in the field of endoprosthetics and fracture care. In this context, two experienced surgeons classified 55 consecutive fractures according to Su et al., Lewis and Rorabeck and by the new created classification. In this regard, the interobserver reliability was determined for two independent raters in terms of Cohen Kappa.

Results

On the basis of the most widely recognized classifications of Su et al. as well as Lewis and Rorabeck, we established an implant-dependent classification for PPF of the distal femur. In accordance with the two stated classifications four fracture types were created and defined. Moreover, the four most frequent prosthesis types were integrated. Finally, a new classification with 16 subtypes was generated based on four types of fracture and four types of prosthesis. Considering all cases the presented implant-associated classification (κ = 0.74) showed a considerably higher interobserver reliability compared to the other classifications of Su et al. (κ = 0.39) as well as Lewis and Rorabeck (κ = 0.31). Excluding the cases which were only assessable by the new classification, it still shows a higher interobserver reliability (κ = 0.70) than the other ones (κ = 0.63 or κ = 0.45).

Conclusions

The new classification system for PPF of the distal femur following TKA considers fracture location and implant type. It is easy to use, shows agood interobserver reliability and allows conclusions to be drawn on treatment recommendations. Moreover, further studies on the evaluation of the classification are necessary and planned.

[Periprosthetic fractures following total hip and knee arthroplasty: Risk factors, epidemiological aspects, diagnostics and classification systems]

Periprosthetic fractures following hip and knee arthroplasty are potentially severe complications. As a fundament in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, specific classification systems are necessary to ensure an optimal individualized treatment of these sometimes complicated fractures. This review article summarizes the epidemiological aspects, risk factors and diagnostics of periprosthetic hip and knee fractures. The most frequently used location related fracture classifications systems are explained. In addition, the recently introduced unified classification system (UCS), which is applicable to any location of periprosthetic fractures, is described in detail. Initial studies have shown a reliable applicability of the UCS to periprosthetic hip and knee fractures.

The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment

Introduction. The periprosthetic fracture of the femur is, in order of frequency, the fourth leading cause (5.9%) of surgical revision. Our study aims to demonstrate how the grafting of bone splint betters the outcomes. Materials. We treated 15 periprosthetic femoral fractures divided into two groups: PS composed of 8 patients treated with plates and splints and PSS involving 7 patients treated only with plates. The evaluation criteria for the two groups during the clinical and radiological follow-up were the quality of life measured by the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Modified Cincinnati Rating System Questionnaire (MCRSQ), bone healing measured by the Radiographic Union Score (RUS), postoperative complications, and mortality. The evaluation endpoint was set at 24 months for both groups (p < 0.05). Results. The surgery lasted an average of 124.5 minutes for the PS group and 112.6 minutes for the PSS. At 24 months all clinical and radiographic scores were p < 0.05 for the PS group. During follow-up 4 patients (2 in each group) died of causes not related to surgery. Conclusions. The use of the metal plate as opposed to cortical allogenic splint should be taken into consideration as a noteworthy point for periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures--incidence, classification problems and the proposal of a modified classification scheme

INTRODUCTION

The increasing incidence of periprosthetic fractures correlates directly with the year-after-year increasing frequency of primary joint replacement surgery. The most common fracture localisation is the femur. The undisputed leader in frequency is the fracture that occurs around a total hip arthroplasty. Unfortunately, no general epidemiologic data exist dealing with exact fracture incidence numbers. Furthermore, existing classifications are lacking important information like time point of fracture occurrence, type of the implanted prosthesis and implantation technique (cemented vs. cementless). Additionally, information about mechanical quality of the bone structure and the fracture type are also missing in part.

METHODS

We scanned the literature for adequate and widely used classifications in the field of hip and knee arthroplasty. In a next step we analyzed those classification systems in order to find out to what extent they are able to describe the specific aspects of the fracture event. Therefore we compared the existing classifications and presented their most relevant emphasis. Furthermore, we looked at our own patient population to evaluate incidence of fracture occurrence over time and percentage of loosened components.

RESULTS

The existing classification systems address themselves specifically to the task of describing fracture localization and to some extent fracture type, or combine these two in order to calculate the possibility of loosening of the implanted prosthesis. Some of the important criteria like mechanical quality of the bone stock, primary implantation technique or time point of the prosthesis loosening (prior to or because of the fracture) remain ignored. The incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures at our department increased approximately 2.5 fold over the past two decades. The risk of suffering from a periprosthetic fracture was substantially higher after THA than after TKA. We observed a loose femoral component of the THA in about 45 % of the cases. Finally, we postulate the application of a modified classification for periprosthetic fractures as an alternative to the already published ones; not only for the femur, but also universally for all joints with an arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The classification that is introduced in this study allows, in our opinion, a differentiated reflection of the given post-traumatic pathologic changes and enables the description of the fracture itself according to a generally accepted fracture classification scheme.

Bicortical screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability but devastating failure modes in periprosthetic femur fracture care using locking plates

PURPOSE

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures is inevitably increasing. Sufficient stabilisation and proper screw placement next to large-volume implants remains difficult. Modern locking plates allow polyaxial, thus bicortical, screw placement around a prosthetic stem. This study analysed the biomechanical properties of different screw configurations in a locking plate construct of a periprosthetic femoral fracture model.

METHODS

A total of 20 Sawbones were used to stabilise a Vancouver-B1 femoral fracture with a locking plate using either four monocortical screws or three bicortical screws for proximal fixation. These were loaded with an increasing axial compression until failure.

RESULTS

Bicortical screw purchase was significantly superior to monocortical regarding load to failure (1,510 N ± 284 N versus 2,350 N ± 212 N, p < 0.001) and maximal number of cycles (6803 ± 760 versus 4041 ± 923, p < 0.001). However, the mode of failure in the bicortical group was a severe comminuted fracture pattern as opposed to the monocortical group in which a pull-out of the screws without further damage to the bone was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Bicortical screw placement enhances the primary stability in treating periprosthetic femoral fractures. Notably, the mode of failure may limit the salvage options in case of revision surgery.

Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review article was to investigate the incidence and predisposing factors for periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to review articles related to PFF, their incidence and risk factors.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPF after primary THA was, in general, lower than after revision THA both for intra- and postoperative PFF. The rate of intraoperative PFF ranged from 0.1% to 27.8% and of postoperative PFF from 0.07% to 18%. Predisposing factors for intraoperative PFF are osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, femoral preparation and surgical technique used to insert the rasp or femoral component, the use of press-fit cementless stems, and revision THA. In case of postoperative PFF, the following seem to be significant risk factors: advanced age, female gender, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis, proximal femoral deformities, previous surgery of the affected hip, implant type (especially cementless stems and press-fit implantation), technical errors such as cortical perforation, cortical stress risers, low-energy trauma, osteolysis, loosening and revision THA.