Management of Interprosthetic Femur Fractures

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.

Ipsilateral Hip and Knee Reconstruction Using an Intramedullary Total Femoral Replacement System

The intramedullary total femoral reconstruction (ITFR) was used successfully in a 62-year-old patient with myxoid liposarcoma of the thigh and post-radiation fracture nonunion of the proximal femur and osteonecrosis of the ipsilateral knee. This described technique offers the advantage of a less invasive prosthesis insertion, preservation of the surrounding muscle attachments, better functional outcomes, and lower complication rates. Total femoral reconstruction using ITFR, preserving the femoral diaphysis, could be an option to address concomitant hip and knee defects, especially in patients with poor soft tissue quality.

[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.

Interprosthetic and interimplant femoral fractures: is bone strut allograft augmentation with ORIF a validity alternative solution in elderly?

BACKGROUND

Nowadays orthopedic surgeons have a new challenge to treat the interimplants fractures. Although fixation strategies exist for periprosthetic hip and knee fractures, there is no standard of care regarding the more complex interprosthetic and interimplants fractures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is targeting the focus on the bone strut grafting to avoid the metal hardware failure and to achieve the bone healing in these injuries.

METHODS

A prospective case note review of all interprosthetic or interimplants femoral fractures admitted to our trauma center. There were 11 patients (2 males and 9 females) with a mean age over 85 years old. We treated all the patients by ORIF and medial graft strut allograft to reduce the main complication leading to re-operations and morbidity or mortality is the nonunion or delayed union. The criteria to evaluate the patients during the follow-up were: the survival and complication after the surgery; the objective quality of life measured by Activities of Daily Living Score (ADL). The bone healing was measured by X-rays control as the alignment was measured by radiographic UNION SCORE, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

All the patients reduced their ADL. In the most of cases we had a good x-rays reduction. We had not: No nonunion or Not delayed union. All patients died within 2 years from the surgery but not due by surgical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

According us, the purpose of this surgery is to limit comorbidities and early mortality not to improve optimal restoration of lower limb function.

Interprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Review Article

➢

The prevalence of interprosthetic femur fractures (IFFs) is rising with the aging population and increased prevalence of total joint arthroplasty.

➢

IFFs have high rates of complications and high associated morbidity and mortality.

➢

The main treatment methods available for IFFs include plate fixation, intramedullary nailing, combined plate fixation and intramedullary nailing, and revision arthroplasty including partial and total femur replacement.

➢

There have been several proposed classification systems and at least 1 proposed treatment algorithm for IFFs; however, there is no consensus.

➢

Whichever treatment option is chosen, goals of surgery should include preservation of blood supply, restoration of length, alignment, rotation, and sufficient stabilization to allow for early mobilization.

Treatment Algorithm of Periprosthetic Femoral Fracturens

Introduction. The ever-expanding indications for total hip arthroplasty are leading to more implants being placed in younger as well as in older patients with high functional demand. Also, prolonged life expectancy is contributing to an overall increment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. The Vancouver classification has been the most used for guiding the surgeon choice since its proposal in 1995. Fractures occurring over a hip femoral implant can be divided into intra-operative and post-operative PFFs, and their treatment depends on factors that may severely affect the outcome: level of fracture, implant stability, quality of bone stock, patients' functional demand, age and comorbidities, and surgeon expertise. There are many different treatment techniques available which include osteosynthesis and revision surgery or a combination of both. The goals of surgical treatment are patients' early mobilization, restoration of anatomical alignment and length with a stable prosthesis and maintenance of bone stock. Significance. The aim of this review is to describe the state-of-the-art treatment and outcomes in the management of PFFs. We performed a systematic literature review of studies reporting on the management of PFFs around hip stems and inter-prosthetic fractures identifying 45 manuscripts eligible for the analysis. Conclusions. PFFs present peculiar characteristic that must be considered and special features that must be addressed. Their management is complex due to the extreme variability of stem designs, the possibility of having cemented or uncemented stems, the difficulty in identifying the "real" level of the fracture and the actual stability of the stem. As a result, the definition of a standardized treatment is unlikely, thereby high expertise is fundamental for the surgical management of PPFs, so this kind of fractures should be treated only in specialized centres with both high volume of revision joint arthroplasty and trauma surgery.

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.

Direct medical costs of interprosthetic femoral fracture treatment: A cohort analysis

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFs) represent a challenging clinical problem with a fast-rising incidence. Interprosthetic fractures (IPFs) represent one of its most difficult variants. There is a paucity of data regarding the financial burden of PPFs, and none for IPFs. This study aims to estimate the direct medical cost of the surgical treatment of IPFs in NHS, and analyse the factors influencing this when using different methods of surgical treatment.

METHODS

A cohort of patients with IPFs treated in a single academic unit over a period of 8-years with different surgical methods was studied. In-hospital details, as well as outpatient follow-up data, were gathered relevant to their clinical and radiological outcome until discharge. Local and national NHS data were acquired from the financial department, as well as industry-related resources. The economic analysis was structured as a cost identification analysis (CIA) of the overall cohort, but also as a comparative best-case scenario (uncomplicated course till discharge) comparison between the 3 main different management strategies (a) revision arthroplasty (RTHA), b) plate fixation (ORIF), c) combination of implants (COMBO).

RESULTS

Data from 28 patients (22 females) with IPFs were analysed with a median age of 78.4 years. The overall direct medical cost of treating this cohort of patients was £468,330, with a median of £15.625 (range £10,128 to 33,060). Comparing the three different surgical modalities, the median cost in groups a, b, and c was £20,793 (range £12,110 to £24,116), £12,979 (range £10,128 to £20,555), and £22,316 (range £10,938 to £23,081) respectively. In all groups, the 2/3 of the identified costs were relevant to the inpatient stay. Transfusions were the highest (3 units of cRBC on average) to the patients that received a revision THA vs the other two groups (p=0.022). There was statistically significant higher mean overall cost between the RTHA and the ORIF groups (£19,453 vs. £14,201, p=0.0242), but not when compared with the COMBO cases (£19,453 vs. £18,788, p=0.86).

CONCLUSION

The first cost identification study and "best case scenario" comparative analysis for IPFs demonstrated a significant overall direct medical cost, when managing these complex fractures with variable contemporary techniques. Evidence based reimbursement strategies should be developed to allow the sustainability of the clinical service we offer in this challenging patient population.

High Survivorship of Short-Cemented Femoral Stems in Condylar Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Without Significant Metaphyseal Bone Loss: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of hybrid fixation technique in condylar revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) using cementless metaphyseal tibial sleeves and short-cemented femoral stems with a rotating platform articulation.

METHODS

Retrospective consecutive study of all condylar rTKAs with a cemented femoral stem between 2009 and 2016 was conducted. Patients were identified using a local prospective database and linkable data obtained from the National Joint Registry for rTKA. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were collected from patients' electronic health records. The primary outcome measure was mechanical failure and implant survivorship using a nationally collected data, complications, re-operations, and "any-cause revision" were also recorded.

RESULTS

There were 72 consecutive patients (72 knees) with minimum 5-year follow-up: 33 (45.8%) females and 39 (54.2%) males with a median age of 70 years (range 47-88). The indication for revision surgery was aseptic loosening (n = 34, 47.2%), instability (n = 17, 23.6%), infection (n = 14, 19.5%) with 10 patients having 2-stage approach and 4 patients with single-stage approach, stiffness (n = 4, 5.6%), and malalignment (n = 3, 4.1%). At mean follow-up of 6.87 years (median 6.7; range 5-11.8), only 2 patients required revision for infection. Using "any-cause implant revision" as an end point, implant survivorship for this construct was 97.2% at median 6.7 years. To date, none of the femoral stems have been revised for mechanical failure.

CONCLUSION

In rTKA with good femoral condylar bone stock, we have shown excellent survivorship with a short-cemented femoral stem, in conjunction with a mobile-bearing and a tibial sleeve. This has the advantage of reducing the length of the revision construct of this complex surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Finite Element Analysis of Fracture Fixation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fracture fixation aims to provide stability and promote healing, but remains challenging in unstable and osteoporotic fractures with increased risk of construct failure and nonunion. The first part of this article reviews the clinical motivation behind finite element analysis of fracture fixation, its strengths and weaknesses, how models are developed and validated, and how outputs are typically interpreted. The second part reviews recent modeling studies of the femur and proximal humerus, areas with particular relevance to fragility fractures.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is some consensus in the literature around how certain modeling aspects are pragmatically formulated, including bone and implant geometries, meshing, material properties, interactions, and loads and boundary conditions. Studies most often focus on predicted implant stress, bone strain surrounding screws, or interfragmentary displacements. However, most models are not rigorously validated. With refined modeling methods, improved validation efforts, and large-scale systematic analyses, finite element analysis is poised to advance the understanding of fracture fixation failure, enable optimization of implant designs, and improve surgical guidance.

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.

Interprosthetic femoral fractures managed with modern distal femoral locking plates: 10 years' experience at a UK major trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

Interprosthetic femoral fractures (IFF) are rare but increasing with an ageing population. Operative management is challenging and there is currently a paucity of outcome data in literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of IFFs managed with modern distal femoral locking plates, in a larger sample size than previously published.

METHOD

This retrospective study reviewed 49 closed IFFs in 48 patients at a major trauma center from 2009 to 2019 occurring between previous total hip arthroplasty (n=38), hemi hip arthroplasty (n=3), dynamic hip screw (n=6) or cephalomedullary nail (n=2) and total knee arthroplasty. They were managed with Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) employing modern biological fixation techniques and stabilised with VA-LCP Condylar (Synthes; n=28) or Peri-Loc (S&N; n=21) plate. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

The majority of fractures were in female patients (80%), who were elderly (average 83 years), and comorbid (55% ASA grade 3 or 4). Most fractures were Pires type IIA and OTA/AO type 33A. Average plate spanning femur was 16 holes, with average working length of 6 holes. 86% had unrestricted weight bearing immediately post operatively. 31 fractures reached radiological (n=25) or clinical (n=6) union. 13 patients died with 2 lost to follow up. There were 3 non-unions, with implant failure occurring before 4 months in all 3. We present a union rate of 91% (n=31/34).

CONCLUSION

IFFs are occurring with increasing frequency in a frail elderly population. In patients with IFFs, MIPO and biological fixation techniques using modern distal femoral locking plates can achieve high rate of union when combined with immediate unrestricted weight bearing postoperatively.

Total Femur Antibiotic Spacers: Effective Salvage for Complex Periprosthetic Joint Infections

BACKGROUND

A simultaneous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of an ipsilateral hip and knee arthroplasty is a challenging complication of lower extremity reconstructive surgery. We evaluated the use of total femur antibiotic-impregnated polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement spacers in the staged treatment of such limb-threatening PJIs.

METHODS

Thirteen patients were treated with a total femur antibiotic spacer. The mean age at the time of spacer placement was 65 years. Nine patients had polymicrobial PJIs. All spacers incorporated vancomycin (3.0 g/40 g PMMA) and gentamicin (3.6 g/40 g PMMA), while 8 also included amphotericin (150 mg/40 g PMMA). Eleven spacers were biarticular. Twelve spacers were implanted through one longitudinal incision, while 8 of 12 reimplantations occurred through 2 smaller, separate hip and knee incisions. Mean follow-up after reimplantation was 3 years.

RESULTS

Twelve (92%) patients underwent reimplantation of a total femur prosthesis at a mean of 26 weeks. One patient died of medical complications 41 days after spacer placement. At latest follow-up, 3 patients had experienced PJI recurrence managed with irrigation and debridement. One required acetabular component revision for instability. All 12 reimplanted patients retained the total femur prosthesis with no amputations. Eleven (91%) were ambulatory, and 7 (58%) remained on suppressive antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Total femur antibiotic spacers are a viable, but technically demanding, limb-salvage option for complex PJIs involving the ipsilateral hip and knee. In the largest series to date, there were no amputations and 75% of reimplanted patients remained infection-free. Radical debridement, antimicrobial diversity, prolonged spacer retention, and limiting recurrent soft tissue violation are potential tenets of success.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

[Complex periprosthetic combination injury : Periprosthetic, interprosthetic and patellar fractures in an aged person]

Due to the demographic trend and the rising number of implanted joint prostheses, the incidence of periprosthetic fractures is going to increase in the future.This article describes the case of an aged person with a very unusual combination of periprosthetic and interprosthetic fractures with an inlying cementless total hip replacement and total knee replacement.By complying with the treatment strategies recommended for the respective individual injuries and the use of a geriatric trauma algorithm, it is even possible to successfully treat such a case.In addition to the unusual injury constellation, especially the surgical and geriatric traumatological treatment strategy are presented.

Periprosthetic hip fractures: an update into their management and clinical outcomes

The Vancouver classification is still a useful tool of communication and stratification of periprosthetic fractures, but besides the three parameters it considers, clinicians should also assess additional factors.

Combined advanced trauma and arthroplasty skills must be available in departments managing these complex injuries.

Preoperative confirmation of the THA (total hip arthroplasty) stability is sometimes challenging. The most reliable method remains intraoperative assessment during surgical exploration of the hip joint.

Certain B1 fractures will benefit from revision surgery, whilst some B2 fractures can be effectively managed with osteosynthesis, especially in frail patients.

Less invasive osteosynthesis, balanced plate–bone constructs, composite implant solutions, together with an appropriate reduction of the limb axis, rotation and length are critical for a successful fixation and uneventful fracture healing.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:75-92. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200050

Management of periprosthetic fractures of knee arthroplasty with revision surgery

Objective

As periprosthetic knee fractures are becoming common with the increase in incidence of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty, their management and treatment have become important. The current study aims to evaluate the revision knee arthroplasty carried out due to the failure of primary treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Methods

The study was conducted from May 2012 to September 2019 at Orthopedics department of Xinjiang Medical University; out of 21 patients 11 were women and 10 men aged 44 to 80 (mean, 70.76 ± 8.31) years who underwent revision surgery for periprosthetic fractures of 19 distal femur, 1 patellar, and 1 proximal tibial fracture. Nineteen cases had definite trauma history leading to periprosthetic fracture, and 2 cases had fracture during post-operative functional exercise. All patients had revision surgery with extended stems with either constrained or limited condylar knee prosthesis.

Results

The duration of follow-up averaged 4.3 years. The Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score before fracture averaged 91 + 7.01 points (89-95 points) and 85.5 + 6.18 points (81-90 points) at the last follow-up. The average range of motion of knee joint before fracture was 115.7 [+7.6] (110 [~126]), and 101.3 [+9.8] (85 [~115]) at the last follow-up. There was no significant statistical difference. No complications such as infection, component loosening or nonunion. 2 patients had lower extremity vein thrombosis.

Conclusion

Revision surgery of the knee for the periprosthetic fractures with proper prosthetic selection can attain good outcomes after primary total knee arthroplasty. Reasonable and correct procedure is the main principle for a successful operation. The benefits and applicability of revision TKA is the reconstructive solution for the issues of prosthetic knee fractures, is highly recommended.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Interprosthetic fractures occur between a total knee replacement and a femoral stem of either a hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement. The number of interprosthetic fractures will increase as the number of joint replacements rises. There is currently a paucity of literature looking at the outcomes of interprosthetic fractures. Therefore, we performed a retrospective study to: (1) determine fracture union in patients following surgical treatment of a femoral interprosthetic fracture, (2) measure outcomes included mortality and complications.

HYPOTHESIS

Favoring bone fixation instead of prosthetic revision gives an acceptable rate of reoperation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective case note review of all interprosthetic femoral fractures admitted to a tertiary trauma centre over a 7-year period. There were 24 patients (4 males and 20 females) with a mean age of 82.3 (65-98). The initial operative procedure was a total hip replacement (THR) and a total knee replacement (TKR) in 19 patients, one THR and revision TKR, four hip hemiarthroplasty and TKR. There were 23 cemented femoral stems, and 1 uncemented femoral stem. The median time to surgery was 84hours. The median length of hospital stay was 16 days. Nineteen patients underwent open reduction internal fixation and 1 of these used a strut graft. Two patients underwent revision knee replacements and 3 underwent a revision hip replacement. All patients had at least 2 years clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

One patient died within 30 days of fracture, leaving 23 patients to assess bone union. Another patient died within 1 year of fracture. Three out of 24 patients (12.5%) suffered a complication that required further surgery. The fracture united in 19/23 (82.6%) of patients and the 2-year mortality rate was 5/24 (20.8%).

DISCUSSION

Interprosthetic fractures are complex fractures occurring in elderly patients with multiple medical comorbidities. Whenever possible bone fixation instead of prostehtic revision give a low rate of complication and reoperation. The surgical treatments are complex, but with a well-performed surgical technique and an adequate rehabilitation program can result in satisfactory outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for the Management of Periprosthetic Fractures

Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can present reconstructive challenges. Not only is the procedure technically complex, but patients with these fractures may have multiple comorbidities, making them prone to postoperative complications. Early mobilization is particularly beneficial in patients with multiple comorbidities. Certain patient factors and fracture types may make revision TKA the ideal management option. Periprosthetic fractures around the knee implant occur most frequently in the distal femur, followed by the tibia and the patella. Risk factors typically are grouped into patient factors (eg, osteoporosis, obesity) and surgical factors (eg, anterior notching, implant malposition). Surgical options for periprosthetic fractures that involve the distal femur or proximal tibia include reconstruction of the bone stock with augments or metal cones or replacement with an endoprosthesis.