Outcome of surgical treatment of inter prosthetic fractures: A case series

Incidences and Outcomes of Operatively Treated Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures Compared to Vancouver Type C and Rorabeck Type II Fractures

BACKGROUND

This case-control study evaluated the incidences and outcomes of interprosthetic femoral fracture (IPFF) (Group I) and performed comparisons with Vancouver type C (Group II) and Rorabeck type II (Group III) periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) occurring at similar anatomic sites.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed for all patients who had a previously implanted total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), who lived in the hospital district and had undergone surgery due to PPFF. A total of 153 PPFFs [Group I (n = 31), Group II (n = 21), and Group III (n = 108)] were included. The annual incidences of PPFFs were summarized per 100,000 individuals. The risks of complications, reoperations, and mortalities were evaluated for all groups.

RESULTS

The mean population-based annual incidence was 0.9 per 100,000 person years for Group I, 0.7 per 100,000 person years for Group II, and 3.1 per 100,000 person years for Group III. A total of 25 of 153 (16%) major complications were found and 23 of 153 (13%) cases resulted in a revision surgery. The cumulative incidence of death in Group I was 50.4% at 10 years, in Group II it was 63.8% at 10 years, and in Group III it was 74.9% at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

The annual incidence of the IPFF almost doubled while the incidence of Vancouver type C stayed stable and Rorabeck type II incidence increased 5-fold. Most of the major complications occurred in IPFF group, while Rorabeck type II patients had the worst survival.

[Treatment aspects of interprosthetic femur fractures-retrospective analysis of 70 patients]

BACKGROUND

Interprosthetic femur fractures (IFF) are rare injuries, whose surgical treatment is basically with osteosynthesis or revision arthroplasty. Various therapy algorithms have been proposed based on very small study collectives. Factors influencing the outcome are not known.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the retrospective monocentric study is to derive a treatment algorithm based on a large number of cases and to identify factors influencing the outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2006 and 2020, 70 IFF were identified. The surgical treatment comprised 38 osteosyntheses, 30 revision arthroplasties and 2 amputations. With classification and time to surgery, 69 perioperative variables were recorded. General and operative complications, as well as mortality, were determined in the follow-up period of 1 year.

RESULTS

ASA and Charlson score correlated with 1‑year-mortality. In addition, preoperatively increased CRP levels, reduced hemoglobin and the CHA2DS2-VASc score were identified as factors influencing mortality. Surgery within 24 h showed a trend towards fewer general complications. Transferred patients indicated an increased mortality. Based on classification according to Pires et al. or Füchtmeier et al. no clear treatment decision could be made. Relevant criteria for the surgical treatment were fracture localization, implant stability, bone vitality, anchoring possibility of the revision stem, as well as general condition of the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified factors influencing the outcome correspond to those of patients with hip fractures. IFF should be treated timely. A treatment path was developed on the basis of the largest patient group to date.

A systematic review of the surgical outcomes of interprosthetic femur fractures

Background

Interprosthetic femur fractures (IFFs) are rare, but the treatment is challenging. Currently, there are many treatment methods used in practice, but an updated systematic review of comparison of common different surgical outcomes has not been thoroughly inspected.

Methods

A systematic review of retrospective studies was conducted. The resource databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched using a combination of the keywords involving IFFs and surgical outcomes from inception through June 2021. Data collected included patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. Outcomes were measured based on healing time, revision rate, complication rate, and functional scores.

Results

Forty studies were included for review with a total of 508 patients. Average reported age of patients was 78.7 years old and 403 (79.3%) were females. Overall union rate was 74.0% with 376 of 508 patients achieving fracture union after primary treatment of IFF. Only 271 patients had reported healing times of fractures with a mean of 5.15 months. The plate, prosthetic revision, nail/rod, and external fixator groups had mean healing times of 4.69, 8.73, 6.5, and 5.1 months, respectively. Revision rates were highest in the femur replacement treatment group with 9 (32.1%) patients needing at least one reoperation surgery for any reason. Overall, hardware failure and non-unions were the most reported complications in treatment of IFFs. Postoperative functional outcome scores were available for 242 patients. Harris Hip Scores for the plate, revision, replacement, nail/rod, and plate + revision groups were 76.84, 77.14, 69.9, 77, and 78.4, respectively.

Conclusion

Each treatment method should be carefully considered by the surgeon depending on the patient. Locking plate was the most common method for the treatment of the patients with IFFs. Half of them combined with cerclage wires/cables. Around two thirds' patients could achieve union with the fastest mean healing time around 4.69 months. Other less common methods included prosthetic revision, femur replacement, nail/rod, external fixator, etc. A small number of patients treated with Ilizarov external fixator, and it has proven to be a viable option with few complications and high union rates.

Comparison of morbidity-mortality and functional results between implant exchange and internal fixation by plate for periprosthetic femoral fracture in total knee arthroplasty: A 52-case series

INTRODUCTION

Surgical options for periprosthetic femoral fracture in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are controversial. The present retrospective study compared morbidity, mortality and functional results between implant exchange (group IE) and internal fixation by plate (group IF). The study hypothesis was that implant exchange does not give rise to more complications than plate fixation and that functional results are equivalent.

METHODS

Fifty-two femoral fractures in contact with a TKA implant were studied. The IE and IF groups (n 32 and 20, respectively), were comparable for age, gender and ASA score. Mean age was 80.5 years (range, 53-96 years). Morbidity and mortality were assessed on Clavien score; functional assessment used the KOOS questionnaire.

RESULTS

Mortality was 50% in group IF and 40% in group IE (p=0.4817). One patient was lost to follow-up. Complications were seen in 15 group IF patients (48.4%) versus 5 in group IE (26.3%) (p=0.14760), with infection in 5 (16.1%) and 2 patients (10.5%) respectively (p=0.69475). In both groups, 9 patients (i.e., 28.1% and 40% respectively) showed grade 2 complications (p=1). Revision surgery was performed in 8 grade 3b patients (25%) in the IF group and in 3 (15%) in the IE group (p=1). Mean KOOS score was 40 (range, 20-72) in IF and 65 (range, 50-93) in IE (p=0.0004).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality were comparable between implant exchange and plate fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture in TKA. KOOS functional scores were better with implant exchange. Implant exchange may be suited to complex fracture with stable implant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, observational study.

Interimplant femoral fractures

The number of hip or knee arthroplasties, and internal fixations of the proximal and distal femur, is increasing in proportion to the growing and ageing population, whose life expectancy is lengthening. Thus, fractures of the femur between proximal and distal implants, although rare, are becoming more frequent. Women over the age of 70, with fragile bones and whose ends of the two implants are close to each other ("kissing implants") are particularly vulnerable to them. Reliable and reproducible fracture classifications exist when it comes to 2 prostheses, but they are less well established in the presence of one, or even two, non-prosthetic implants. Their treatment is difficult and must consider the possibility of fracture consolidation while ensuring or restoring the stability and role of the implants. Whether it is the main element of treatment or a complement to prosthesis revision, locked plating forms the basis of the treatment but it must be rigorous, considering that failures are mainly the result of technical errors. Other more invasive treatments (total femoral arthroplasty, cortical sleeves) are offered more rarely if consolidation appears compromised.

Outcomes of operatively treated interprosthetic femoral fractures

AIMS

The prevalence of ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in concert with life expectancy, putting more patients at risk for interprosthetic femur fractures (IPFFs). Our study aimed to assess treatment methodologies, implant survivorship, and IPFF clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 76 patients treated for an IPFF from February 1985 to April 2018 were reviewed. Prior to fracture, at the hip/knee sites respectively, 46 femora had primary/primary, 21 had revision/primary, three had primary/revision, and six had revision/revision components. Mean age and BMI were 74 years (33 to 99) and 30 kg/m² (21 to 46), respectively. Mean follow-up after fracture treatment was seven years (2 to 24).

RESULTS

Overall, 59 fractures were classified as Vancouver C (Unified Classification System (UCS) D), 17 were Vancouver B (UCS B). In total, 57 patients (75%) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); three developed nonunion, three developed periprosthetic joint infection, and two developed aseptic loosening. In all, 18 patients (24%) underwent revision arthroplasty including 13 revision THAs, four distal femoral arthroplasties (DFAs), and one revision TKA: of these, one patient developed aseptic loosening and two developed nonunion. Survivorship free from any reoperation was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.9% to 90.6%) and 77% (95% CI 49.4% to 90.7%) in the ORIF and revision groups at two years, respectively. ORIF patients who went on to union tended to have stemmed knee components and greater mean interprosthetic distance (IPD = 189 mm (SD 73.6) vs 163 mm (SD 36.7); p = 0.546) than nonunited fractures. Patients who went on to nonunion in the revision arthroplasty group had higher medullary diameter: cortical width ratio (2.5 (SD 1.7) vs 1.3 (SD 0.3); p = 0.008) and lower IPD (36 mm (SD 30.6) vs 214 mm (SD 32.1); p < 0.001). At latest follow-up, 95% of patients (n = 72) were ambulatory.

CONCLUSION

Interprosthetic femur fractures are technically and biologically challenging cases. Individualized approaches to internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty led to an 81% (95% CI 68.3% to 88.6%) survivorship free from reoperation at two years with 95% of patients ambulatory. Continued improvements in management are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):122-128.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden.

A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies.

Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately.

Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems.

Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003

Interprosthetic femoral fractures: management challenges

Interprosthetic femur fractures are a rare but serious complication following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Classification systems have focused not only on diagnosis but also on treatment algorithm. Critical to the evaluation of patients with these fractures are an assessment of fracture location, bone quality, and the presence of stemmed implants. The gold standard for fracture fixation is locked plating with bicortical and unicortical screws, supplemented with wires or cables as needed. For patients with compromised bone stock or insufficient bony area for fixation, allograft augmentation with struts or interprosthetic sleeves may be used. For fractures with severe bone loss, conversion to a megaprosthesis or total femur replacement may be warranted.