Plate-on-plate technique for treating peri-implant fractures of distal femoral locking plate: a retrospective study of 11 patients

A Retrospective analysis of peri-implant fractures: insights from a large volume clinical Study

PURPOSE

Peri-implant fractures (PIFs) are a concept in evolution for which different diagnostic criteria have been proposed and modified over time. They have not been extensively reported. PIFs are usually located in the distal part of previous osteosynthesis, where fragile bone is in contact with the rigid implant and are a significant complication after orthopaedic surgery, which requires careful management and treatment. This clinical study presents findings from a retrospective analysis of PIF's, providing description of characteristics and outcomes. They provide information about the associated risk factors and description of the effectiveness of various treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in a clinical study involving patients with PIFs. Data from medical records, radiographic images, and surgical reports were collected and analyzed. The study included patients with refracture of pre-existing osteosynthesis admitted to the hospital between 2015 and 2022. Demographic information, fracture characteristics, surgical interventions, and post-operative outcomes were assessed. Each case was followed for a minimum of one year after surgery, and a critical analysis was performed by senior surgeons. Furthermore, the PIFs were classified according to the type of initial implant and the position of the new fracture in relation to the original implant.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2022, out of 18,813 fractures treated at a Level 1 traumatology hospital, a total of 85 patients with PIF's were identified. Fracture characteristics varied, including location, fracture pattern, and implant type. Most of the PIFs, 71 cases (83.53%), occurred in the femur. Additionally, there were seven cases (8.24%) involving the humerus, four cases (4.71%) affecting the tibia/fibula, two cases (2.35%) in the radius, and one case (1.18%) involving the clavicle. Surgical management was the primary attitude in treatment. Various techniques were used, including the use of longer and stronger implants to achieve high-quality fixation, facilitating early rehabilitation and return to previous activities. Postoperative complications after surgery for PIFs were observed in 16 cases (18.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant fractures (PIF) are a distinct topic and a challenging condition with a high rate of postoperative complications. Complications after the second surgery may be severe and life threatening in older patients. A classification can be useful to make decisions about the optimal treatment in different anatomic areas and type of implant used for primary osteosynthesis. Currently there are no standardized protocols for management, therefore each case should be carefully discussed and planned before surgery.

Early peri-implant fractures after distal femur fracture locked plating?

PURPOSE

To report the peri-implant fracture rates after locked plating of distal femur fractures and examine risk factors.

METHODS

Over a 7 year period, 89 AO/OTA 33A/C distal femur fractures were identified and reviewed. After excluding treatment with intramedullary nails, age under 50, those with the proximal femur protected, or those without 6 months of follow-up, 42 distal femur fractures in 41 patients, mean age 72.3 were studied. All were treated with lateral locked plating of distal femur fractures. The details of the constructs were recorded. Mean follow-up was 562 days (18.7 months).

RESULTS

3/42 were open injuries, 9/42 were type C, 16/42 were type A, and 17 were periprosthetic above a knee arthroplasty. Two patients were treated with a dynamic plating construct using all far-cortical locking (FCL) screws in the diaphysis. 40 patients were treated with a variety of non-dynamic diaphyseal constructs including locking, non-locking, and four with 1-2 FCL screws distally. There was one asymptomatic nonunion. 2/2 patients in the dynamically plated group experienced a peri-implant fracture versus 1/40 in the non-dynamically plated group (p = 0.001). 3/9 with an all-locked construct versus 0/25 patients with a most proximal non-locking screw experienced a fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall peri-implant fracture risk was 7.1% (3/42), 3/17 patients with a locking screw most proximal experienced a peri-implant fracture, 3/9 with an all-locking construct, and 2/2 patients with a dynamic construct experienced a fracture. These findings merit additional clinical and biomechanical study.

Peri-implant fractures of the upper and lower extremities: a case series of 61 fractures

PURPOSE

To assess outcomes for patients who sustained peri-implant fractures (PIFs).

METHODS

Medical records of patients who sustained a PIF were reviewed for demographic, injury, outcome, and radiographic data. PIFs were classified using a reproducible system and stratified into cohorts based on fracture location. Clinical outcomes were evaluated for each cohort.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with 61 PIFs with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. The mean age of the cohort was 60.4 ± 19.5 years. Twenty-two (36.1%) PIFs occurred in males, while 39 (63.9%) occurred in females. Fifty-two (85.2%) PIFs were sustained from a low-energy injury mechanism. PIFs were most often treated with plate/screw constructs (50.8%). Complications included: 6 (9.8%) nonunions, 5 of which were successfully treated to healing, 5 (8.2%) fracture related infections (FRI), and 1 (1.6%) hardware failure. Sixty (98.4%) PIFs ultimately demonstrated radiographic healing.

CONCLUSION

PIFs are usually treated surgically and have a relatively high incidence of complications, with nonunion in femoral PIFs being the greatest. Despite this, the rate of ultimate healing is quite high.

Proximal Femur Peri-Implant Fracture After Lateral Femur Locking Plate: A Report of 2 Cases

CASE

This case report discusses 2 cases of proximal femur peri-implant fractures after the use of lateral locking plates for distal femur periprosthetic fractures.

CONCLUSION

The use of locking plate technology for fixation of distal femur periprosthetic fractures is a common treatment modality. Although much has been reported regarding healing and complication rates of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures, little has been reported about peri-implant fractures subsequent to treatment using locking plates. We propose the importance of developing a method of fixation to protect the entire femur in osteoporotic patients sustaining distal femur periprosthetic fractures at the index surgery to avoid this complication.