Search

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.

The primary aims when performing revision arthroplasty of periprosthetic humeral fractures (PHF) are preservation of bone stock, achieving fracture healing and preserving a stable prosthesis with the focus on regaining the preoperative shoulder-arm function. The indications for revision arthroplasty are given in PHF in combination with loosening of the stem. In addition, further factors must be independently clarified in the case of an anatomical arthroplasty. In this context secondary glenoid erosion as well as rotator cuff insufficiency are potential factors for an extended revision procedure. For the performance of revision surgery modular revision sets including long stems, revision glenoid and metaglene components as well as plate and cerclage systems are obligatory besides the explantation instrumentation. Despite a loosened prosthesis, a transhumeral removal of the stem along with a subpectoral fenestration are often required. Length as well as bracing of revision stems need to bridge the fracture by at least twice the humeral diameter. Moreover, in many cases a combined procedure using an additional distal open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) plus cable cerclages as well as biological augmentation might be needed. Assuming an adequate preparation, the experienced surgeon is able to achieve a high fracture union rate along with an acceptable or even good shoulder function and to avoid further complications.

Periprosthetic fractures around the knee joint are of increasing relevance due to increasing numbers of total knee replacements and increasing life expectations. These fractures can be a real challenge due to an often limited patient compliance, reduced bone quality and impaired bone perfusion of potential intramedullary shafts resulting in poor healing and lack of fixation options for screws. These fractures necessitate special knowledge and approaches, which are systematically dealt with in this article, beginning with the correct diagnostics through to the most recent developments in the field of osteosynthetic techniques. The trends of minimally invasive techniques are presented and the options and limitations are described.

The prevalence of periprosthetic humeral fractures (PHF) is currently low and accounts for 0.6-2.4%. Due to an increase in the rate of primary implantations a quantitative increase of PHF is to be expected in the near future. The majority of PHF occur intraoperatively during implantation with an increased risk for cementless stems and when performing total arthroplasty. Additional risk factors are in particular female gender and the severity of comorbidities. In contrast, postoperative PHF mostly due to low-energy falls, have a prevalence between 0.6% and 0.9% and are significantly less common. The prognosis and functional outcome following revision by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) essentially depend on a thorough assessment of the indications for revision surgery, the operative treatment and the pretraumatic functional condition of the affected shoulder. In the armamentarium of periprosthetic ORIF of the humerus cerclage systems and locking implants as well as a combination of both play a central role. In comminuted fractures with extensive defect zones, severely thinned cortex or extensive osteolysis a biological augmentation of the ORIF should be considered. In this context when the indications are correctly interpreted, especially in the case of a stable anchored stem, various groups have reported that a high bony union rate can be achieved. As the treatment of PHF is complex it should be performed in dedicated centers in order to adequately address potential comorbidities, especially in the elderly population.

The key targets in the treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures (PHF) are the preservation of bone, successful bony consolidation and provision of a stable anchoring of the prosthesis with the major goal of restoring the shoulder-arm function. A substantial problem of periprosthetic shoulder fractures is the fact that treatment is determined not only by the fracture itself but also by the implanted prosthesis and its function. Consequently, the exact preoperative shoulder function and, in the case of an implanted anatomical prosthesis, the status and function of the rotator cuff need to be assessed in order to clarify the possibility of a secondarily occurring malfunction. Of equal importance in this context is the type of implanted prosthesis. The existing classification systems of Wright and Cofield, Campbell et al., Groh et al. and Worland et al. have several drawbacks from a shoulder surgeon's point of view, such as a missing reference to the great variability of the available prostheses and the lack of an evaluation of rotator cuff function. The presented 6‑stage classification for the evaluation of periprosthetic fractures of the shoulder can be considered just as simple or complex to understand as the classification of the working group for osteosynthesis problems (AO, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen), depending on the viewpoint. From our point of view the classification presented here encompasses the essential points of the existing classification systems and also covers the otherwise missing points, which should be considered in the assessment of such periprosthetic fractures. The classification presented here should provide helpful assistance in the daily routine to find the most convenient form of therapy.

Periprosthetic fractures of hip and knee prostheses are gaining clinical significance due to the increasing numbers of of primary arthroplasties. Additionally, these fractures are often associated with poor bone quality or present in patients after multiple revision procedures and concomitant excessive bone defects precluding those patients to be adequately treated by conventional osteosynthesis. Revision implants provide a wide range of options for the treatment of these fractures in order to achieve good clinical results. In the acetabular region cavitary defects associated with periprosthetic fractures can be treated by the use of megacups. Extensive segmental defects and pelvic discontinuity necessitate the use of cups with additional iliac support or even customized implants. Proximal femoral fractures can usually be fixed with modular stems and diaphyseal anchorage. Periprosthetic knee joint fractures can be treated with revision implants with modular sleeves or augment-combinations allowing sufficient bridging of bony defects. Functional reconstruction or refixation of the extensor mechanism is of crucial importance.

Periprosthetic fractures of the upper and lower extremities not only represent a challenge for surgeons but also for the rehabilitation team. The sometimes multimorbid patients have often undergone several surgical operations and need special planning and cooperation between an interdisciplinary team in order to achieve the best possible functional result and social reintegration. A structured rehabilitation planning after surgical treatment is a prerequisite for the patient to return to life as normal as possible. The aim is always rapid mobilization to achieve independence in activities of daily living. Special attention should be paid to postoperative immobilization and weight bearing.

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.

Background: The increasing numbers of primary total hip and knee replacements have subsequently led to growing rates of periprosthetic fractures. In many cases geriatric patients with osteopenia or osteoporotic bone quality are affected. The goal of treatment is the retention or reconstruction of joint function using open reduction and internal fixation or a revision prosthesis., Objective: The aim of this article is a description of the basic principles of treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities., Material and Methods: An exact description of the fracture using current classification systems with imaging diagnostics is mandatory. This also includes an assessment of the stability of the prosthesis. In the case of a stable prosthesis and a good bone stock open reduction and internal fixation should be performed. In these cases locking plates are standard procedure. If fracture reduction is possible minimally invasive procedures can be performed which help to reduce the surgical trauma and accelerate rehabilitation. If the prosthesis is loose it has to be exchanged for a revision implant. If vast bony defects result they can be augmented using wedges. Conservative treatment plays only a subordinate role in selected cases., Results and Conclusion: Periprosthetic fractures show an increasing incidence and occur more frequently in the geriatric patient population. Due to comorbidities and poor bone quality surgical treatment is a challenge. The fracture must be exactly classified using the appropriate classification system in order to clarify if the prosthesis can be retained or if it has to be exchanged.

Purpose: As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is increasing, the expected number of periprosthetic femur fractures is also expected to increase. As such, a thorough grasp of the evaluation and management of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures is imperative, and discussed in this review., Methods: This review discusses the epidemiology, classification, and management of periprosthetic femur fractures in an evidence-based fashion., Results: Periprosthetic fracture management starts with assessing stem stability and bone quality. Well-fixed stems require fracture fixation without stem revision, while loose stems require revision THA., Conclusions: Periprosthetic femoral fractures after primary total hip arthroplasty are a complex and clinically challenging issue. The treatment must be based on the fracture, the prosthesis, and the patient (Table 1). The Vancouver classification is not only helpful in classifying the fractures, but also in guiding the treatment. In general, well-fixed stems require open reduction and internal fixation, whereas loose stems require revision arthroplasty.

Purpose: The aim of this article is to propose a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for the acetabular periprosthetic fractures., Methods: This article explores the current literature on the epidemiology, causes and classification of periprosthetic acetabular fractures. Integrating data with the experience of the authors, it offers a guide to diagnosis and possible therapeutic strategies., Results: Intra-operative fractures can occur during rasping, reaming or implant impaction, and they must be treated immediately if the component(s) is (are) unstable. Post-operative fractures can be due to major trauma (acute fractures) or minor forces in bone osteolysis; it is possible to plan reconstruction and fixation according to fracture characteristics. Treatment choice depends upon fracture site and implant stability., Conclusions: Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are uncommon complications that can occur intra-operatively or post-operatively, and a reconstructive surgeon must be able to manage the procedure. Accurate planning and reconstruction implant are necessary to achieve good cup stability.

Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum represent a rare incident in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. The management of these fractures can be challenging. At present, there are no reliable guidelines for the treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures can occur intra-operatively, in particular during insertion of non-cemented cups or in the context of revision surgery. Post-operative causes for periprosthetic acetabular fractures are traumatic events or, more commonly, pelvic discontinuity due to severe bone loss related to osteolysis. Despite their aetiology, the main objective of surgery is to achieve a stable acetabular component and fracture. While stable fractures and implants could be treated non-operatively, unstable fractures require surgery to achieve component stability and allow appropriate biological fixation of the revision cup. Assessment of the stability plays a crucial role before determining the treatment strategy. There is a large variety of surgical techniques available for the management of these fractures. This review article outlines the epidemiology, aetiology and current classification systems, and provides a distinct diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for the treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures.