Search

Periprosthetic fractures after shoulder arthroplasty occur in up to 2% of patients. In patients with stable components who fail or cannot undergo nonoperative management, stable fixation is required. We present a new technique to obtain proximal fixation around the humeral component using a 4.5-mm large fragment plate and a 3.5-mm attachment plate.

One third of the people aged 65 years and over fall every year, and 1-5% of these falls result in a fracture. For these people, history of fracture and surgery become a risk factor for recurrent falls. In osteoporotic patients, repeated fractures often require several osteosynthetic procedures within a short time frame. Despite the lack of biomechanical studies, clinical experience suggests that additional fractures adjacent to implants occur because of the difference in stiffness between the metallic implant and the osteoporotic bone. This requires customized fixation techniques to ensure stability. The technique was first performed in an 81-year old female patient presenting with a dislocated proximal femoral fracture at the tip of a previously implanted distal femoral nail (DFN), and non-union of the old fracture. For this technique, the DFN was advanced until it passed the proximal fracture, thereby reducing both fractures, while a lateral femoral nail (LFN), extra-long and 3 mm thicker than the DFN, was introduced and advanced distally. The LFN was implanted in a "kissing nail technique," meaning the tips of the two nails were touching each other, and all fracture fragments were held in functional reduction. The DFN was slowly pulled backwards and fragment stability was maintained, while both nails passed the distal non-union. The Kissing Nail Technique allows simple, safe and fast reduction of all instable fragments, precise and easy positioning of the proximal entry point by the retrograde guide wire, a minimally invasive procedure, and stable fixation of a periprosthetic fracture. We found this new customized procedure accommodating to the unique anatomical features of a single patient, that can be applied as a strategy especially for osteoporotic patients with periprosthetic fractures., (Copyright © 2017. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Stabilization of the humerus with preservation or restoration of the shoulder function., Indications: Always in the presence of a loose prosthesis. It may become necessary in conditions of poor bone stock and if osteosynthesis is not possible., Contraindications: Noncompliant patients due to alcohol or drugs. Local infections., Surgical Technique: The loose implant is removed using an extended anterior deltopectoral approach. After exploration of the fracture and extended soft tissue release, the glenoidal components are implanted with visualization and protection of the axillary nerve. A long stemmed implant is typically needed on the humeral side. It is anchored in the distal fragment over a length of about 6 cm. Soft tissue tension is crucial, especially with reverse shoulder arthroplasty., Postoperative Management: Postoperatively, the affected limb is immobilized for 6 weeks on a 15° shoulder abduction pillow with active assisted movement therapy up to the horizontal plane. This is followed by gradual pain-adapted increases of movement, muscle coordination, and strength., Results: In 17 patients with periprosthetic fractures of the humerus surgically treated in our institution, 4 underwent revision arthroplasty because of a loose prosthesis. No intra- or postoperative complications were observed. All fractures healed except one.

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures have been increasing, and in patients with osteopenic bone, high body mass index, or a combination both, they are difficult to treat and pose a high risk for malunion. Previous studies have compared the use of locking plates and intramedullary nails, and have found that each has its own strengthens and drawbacks, but neither is superior in terms of treating periprosthetic fractures. Here, we present the technique and series of patients treated with a combination of a retrograde intramedullary nail and flare-to-flare lateral locking plate without the use of allograft or autograft supplementation.

Background: Newer generation cable-plate designs are commonly used for periprosthetic proximal femur fractures; however, comparisons relative to cable-grips remain limited. The aim of this study was to compare radiographic healing rates of cable-plate versus cable-grip fixation for periprosthetic proximal femur fractures., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients with an acute or chronic Vancouver A, B1, or B2 periprosthetic proximal femur fracture undergoing trochanteric fixation with a cable-plate (n = 46 cases) or cable-grip (n = 24 cases) system were identified retrospectively from a single-centre hospital database (mean follow-up 28 months [range 6-89 months]). Demographics, radiographic fracture healing, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Radiographic union rates were not different between the cable-grip versus cable-plate group (67% vs. 76% respectively; p = 0.4). Healing rates of greater trochanteric fractures alone were not different between the cable-plate versus cable-grip groups (75% vs. 71% respectively; p = 0.38). The cable-plates were used for a more diverse range of fracture patterns relative to the cable-grips., Results: An increased number of cables was associated with radiographic healing (odds ratio 14 [95% confidence interval 2-64]; p = 0.01), and body mass index had a negative correlation with radiographic healing (odds ratio -0.4 [95% confidence interval 0.5-0.9]., Conclusions: Similar rates of periprosthetic fracture healing were seen using a cable-grip versus cable-plate system; however, the cable-plate system could be used for a more diverse range of fracture patterns.

Background: Periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures are a significant complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Plate osteosynthesis has been the mainstay of treatment around well-fixed stems. Nonunions are a rare and challenging complication of this fixation method. We report the outcomes of a novel orthogonal plating surgical technique for Vancouver B1 and C-type periprosthetic fractures that previously failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)., Methods: A retrospective review identified all patients with Vancouver B1/C THA periprosthetic femoral nonunions from 2010 to 2015. Exclusion criteria included open fractures and periprosthetic infections. The technique utilised a mechanobiologic strategy of atraumatic exposure, resection of necrotic tissue, bone grafting with adjuvant bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and revision open reduction internal fixation with orthogonal plate osteosynthesis., Results: 6 Vancouver B1/C periprosthetic femoral nonunions were treated. 5 patients were female with an average age of 80.3 years (range 72-91 years). The fractures occurred at a mean of 5.8 years (range 1-10 years) from their initial arthroplasty procedure. No patients underwent further revision surgery; there were no perioperative complications. All patients had a minimum of 11 months follow-up (mean 18.6, range 11-36 months). All fractures achieved osseous union, defined as solid bridging callus over at least 2 cortices and pain free, independent ambulation, at an average of 24.4 weeks (range 6.1-39.7 weeks)., Conclusions: This is the 1st series describing orthogonal locked compression plating using modern implants for periprosthetic femoral nonunions. This technique should be considered in periprosthetic femur fracture nonunions around a well-fixed stem.

The rate of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip replacement has been growing steadily in the last 20 years and ranges from 0.1% to 2.1%. These fractures are mostly related to older patients with the presence of chronic diseases and frequently poor bone quality. The treatment is surgically very complex and demanding, followed by a series of complications. The evaluation in this retrospective study included 23 patients who were medically treated from January 2004 to December 2015 with the mean follow-up of 14.5 (range, 9-25) months. There were 17 patients with cement total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 6 with cementless THA. During treatment of fractures, different techniques were implemented including the use of wire cerclage, dynamic compression plates (DCP), a locking compression plate (LCP) system, and long revision stem. For the purpose of distinguishing fractures, we used the Vancouver classification by Duncan and Masri. For clinical evaluation, we used the modified Merle d'Aubigne score system and monitored complications during treatment. The aim is to show treatment results of the type B periprosthetic femoral fractures by using different operative treatment techniques. According to the Vancouver classification within type B, 10 (43.47%) patients had type B1 fractures, another 10 (43.47%) patients had type B2 fractures, and three (13.04%) patients had type B3 fractures. According to gender distribution, there were eight (34.8%) male and 15 (65.2%) female patients, mean age 59.5 (range, 47-86) years. Twelve (52.2%) and 11 (47.8%) patients had left- and right-sided fractures, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 16 (range, 9-26) days. According to the Merle d'Aubigne score system, 10 patients with type B1 fractures had the mean score of 11.5 points, which is poor result. Poor result was also recorded in patients with type B2 fractures, with the mean score of 10.6 points. The three patients with type B3 fractures had the mean score of 12 points, which is considered fair score. In conclusion, Vancouver classification has been widely accepted and using the protocols makes decision making during treatment much easier. During treatment of this type of fracture, we used various implants, wire cerclage, DCP and LCP, as well as long stem revision. In certain cases, we applied surgical techniques, implants that are not recommended by the Vancouver protocol by which we treated periprosthetic femoral fractures; in these case, we recorded nonunion bone, malunion and breaking of implants, which resulted in poor treatment outcome.

Alterations have been made over the years to the standard reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthetic components in an effort to decrease adverse events; this has led to the advent of a short humeral stem prosthesis. To the authors' knowledge, there are no reports describing the complication of a traumatic periprosthetic Wright and Cofield classification type A fracture with use of a short metaphyseal humeral stem component for RTSA. The authors describe a 49-year-old woman with this pathology who was treated with open reduction and internal fixation using a proximal humerus locking plate, unicortical and bicortical screw fixation, and a cerclage wire construct without the need to violate the shoulder joint or revise components. Three months postoperatively, she was instructed to begin active range of motion in physical therapy. At 13 months postoperatively, the patient rated her pain level at an average 5 of 10 in severity, with active assisted scaption to 125°, external rotation to 15°, and internal rotation to L5. Radiographs at this time revealed a well-healed fracture. This not only indicates the previously unreported occurrence of such a complication pattern, which was thought rare with the advent of the short humeral RTSA stem, but also provides a viable intraoperative strategy for open reduction and internal fixation with a proximal humerus locking plate, unicortical and bicortical screw fixation, and a cerclage wire construct without the need to violate the shoulder joint. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e721-e724.]., (Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.)

Background and Aim of the Work: Periprosthetic knee fractures incidence is gradually raising due to aging of population and increasing of total knee arthroplasties. Management of this complication represents a challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. Aim of the present study is to critically review the recent literature about epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, management and outcome of periprosthetic knee fractures., Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Medline and Pubmed was performed by two reviewers who selected the eligible papers favoring studies published in the last ten years. Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnostic features, clinical management and outcome of different techniques were all reviewed., Results: 52 studies including reviews, meta-analysis, clinical and biomechanical studies were selected., Conclusions: Correct clinical management requires adequate diagnosis and evaluation of risk factors. Conservative treatment is rarely indicated. Locking plate fixation, intramedullary nailing and revision arthroplasty are all valuable treatment methods. Surgical technique should be chosen considering age and functional demand, comorbidities, fracture morphology and location, bone quality and stability of the implant. Given the correct indication all surgical treatment can lead to satisfactory clinical and radiographic results despite a relevant complication rate.

Objectives: The goals of this study are to evaluate mortality after Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures and determine predictors of mortality; compare mortality among patients with loose femoral stems treated with revision arthroplasty versus fixation alone; compare mortality among patients with radiographically "indeterminate" fractures treated with revision or fixation; and evaluate the rate of return to surgery for patients who underwent revision compared with fixation., Design: Retrospective study., Setting: Three academic level 1 trauma centers., Patients/participants: Two hundred three patients treated for Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures., Intervention: N/A., Main Outcome Measurements: The primary outcome measure was mortality. The secondary outcome measure was reoperation because of infection, failure of fixation, dislocation, or other mechanical failure., Results: Overall 1-year survival was 87% and 5-year survival was 54%. Among patients with loose femoral stems, there was no significant difference with regard to survival between patients treated with fracture fixation or revision arthroplasty (1-year survival 83% vs. 85%, 5-year survival 41% vs. 58%). Among patients whose radiographs were classified as indeterminate, there was no significant difference between patients treated with fracture fixation alone or revision arthroplasty. There was no significant difference between total reoperation rates between the two groups (11% vs. 16%)., Conclusion: This study suggests that there is no discernible survival benefit to treating patients with periprosthetic fractures with either revision arthroplasty or fixation alone. Therefore, from a mortality perspective, when faced with Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures, the orthopaedic surgeon should feel comfortable performing the type of intervention he/she is most proficient to perform., Level of Evidence: Prognostic level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

In contrast to periprosthetic fractures of the femur, periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum are rare complications - both primary fractures and fractures in revision surgery. This topic is largely under-reported in the literature; there are a few case reports and no long term results. Due to an increase in life expectancy, the level of patients' activity and the number of primary joint replacements, one has to expect a rise in periprosthetic complications in general and periprosthetic acetabular fractures in particular. This kind of fracture can be intra-, peri- or postoperative. Intraoperative fractures are especially associated with insertion of cementless press-fit acetabular components or revision surgery. Postoperative periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum are usually related to osteolysis, for example, due to polyethylene wear. There are also traumatic fractures and fractures missed intraoperatively that lead to some kind of insufficiency fracture. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum are treated conservatively if the implant is stable and the fracture is not dislocated. If surgery is needed, there are many possible different surgical techniques and challenging approaches. That is why periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum should be treated by experts in pelvic surgery as well as revision arthroplasty and the features specific to the patient, fracture and prosthetic must always be considered., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and purpose - Short-term experimental studies have confirmed that there is superior fixation of cementless implants inserted with compaction compared to broaching of the cancellous bone. Patients and methods - 1-stage, bilateral primary THA was performed in 28 patients between May 2001 and September 2007. The patients were randomized to femoral bone preparation with broaching on 1 side and compaction on the other side. 8 patients declined to attend the postoperative follow-up, leaving 20 patients (13 male) with a mean age of 58 (36-70) years for evaluation. The patients were followed with radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks, and at 1, 2, and 5 years, and measurements of periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) at baseline and at 1, 2, and 5 years. The subjective part of the Harris hip score (HHS) and details of complications throughout the observation period were obtained at a mean interval of 6.3 (3.0-9.5) years after surgery. Results - Femoral stems in the compaction group had a higher degree of medio-lateral migration (0.21 mm, 95% CI: 0.03-0.40) than femoral stems in the broaching group at 5 years (p = 0.02). No other significant differences in translations or rotations were found between the 2 surgical techniques at 2 years (p > 0.4) and 5 years (p > 0.7) postoperatively. There were no individual stems with continuous migration. Periprosthetic BMD in the 7 Gruen zones was similar at 2 years and at 5 years. Intraoperative femoral fractures occurred in 2 of 20 compacted hips, but there were none in the 20 broached hips. The HHS and dislocations were similar in the 2 groups at 6.3 (3.0-9.5) years after surgery. Interpretation - Bone compaction as a surgical technique with the Bi-Metric stem did not show the superior outcomes expected compared to conventional broaching. Furthermore, 2 periprosthetic fractures occurred using the compaction technique, so we cannot recommend compaction for insertion of the cementless Bi-Metric stem.

Fractures of the tibial shaft in patients with ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty are rare but difficult to treat. Nonoperative treatment of these fractures with casting or bracing limits weight bearing for an extended period and can result in unacceptable malalignment. Operative fixation with plate and screws also limits early weight bearing and requires healing of soft tissue that is of poor quality. The authors present a method of internal fixation that uses a standard intramedullary tibial nail and suprapatellar instrumentation. This method can easily be performed, avoids the tibial baseplate, and does not require alteration of the instrumentation or intramedullary nail.

Purpose: To evaluate peri-prosthetic femoral fractures by analysing type of patient, treatment and outcomes, and to compare them with Spanish series published in the last 20 years., Material and Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fractures treated in our hospital from 2010 to 2014, and telephone survey on the current status., Results: A total of 34 peri-prosthetic femoral fractures were analysed, 20 in hip arthroplasty and 14 in knee arthroplasty. The mean age of the patients was 79.9 years, and 91% had previous comorbidity, with up to 36% having at least 3 prior systemic diseases. Mean hospital stay was 8.7 days, and was higher in surgically-treated than in conservative-treated patients. The majority (60.6%) of patients had complications, and mortality was 18%. Functional status was not regained in 61.5% of patients, and pain was higher in hip than in knee arthroplasty., Discussion: Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in frequency. This is due to the increasing number of arthroplasties performed and also to the increasing age of these patients. Treatment of these fractures is complex because of the presence of an arthroplasty component, low bone quality, and comorbidity of the patients., Conclusion: Peri-prosthetic femoral fractures impair quality of life. They need individualised treatment, and have frequent complications and mortality., (Copyright © 2016 SECOT. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a complicated complication of both primary and revision hip arthroplasty with an increasing incidence. The present study aimed to summarize the clinical characteristics and identify the risk factors for PFF which would be potentially helpful in the prevention and treatment of PFF.We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 89 cases of PFF, and a case-control study was designed to identify the potential risk for intraoperative and postoperative PFF in both primary and revision hip arthroplasty.The overall incidence of PFF was 2.08% (intraoperative: 1.77%, postoperative: 0.30%, revision: 13.60%, and primary: 0.97%). The most commonly used treatment strategy was fixation with cerclage wire or band for intraoperative PFF, whereas long stem revision with plate or cortical allograft strut fixation was the main treatment strategy for postoperative PFF. The risk factors for intraoperative PFF in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) included the diagnosis of development dysplasia of the hip (DDH) (odds ratio [OR] = 5.01, 95%CI, 1.218-20.563, P=0.03) and CBR ≥ 0.49 (OR = 3.34, 95%CI, 1.138-9.784, P = 0.03). The increased age was associated with increased incidence of postoperative PFF in primary THA (OR = 1.09, 95%CI, 1.001-1.194, P = 0.04). As for the intraoperative PFF in revision THA, we found that receiving multiple operations before revision (OR = 2.45, 95%CI, 1.06-5.66, P = 0.04), revisions due to prosthetic joint infection (OR = 6.72, 95%CI, 1.007-44.832, P = 0.04), the presence of cementless implant before revision (OR = 13.54, 95%CI, 3.103-59.08, P = 0.001), and femoral deformity (OR = 8.03, 95%CI, 1.656-38.966, P = 0.01) were all risk factors.Screening for high-risk patients, preoperative templating, and detailed discharge instructions may be the potential strategies to reduce the incidence of PFF. The treatment of PFFs should take into account Vancouver classification system, patient's characteristics as well as the experience of the operating surgeon., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Introduction: Surgical management of massive bone defects is very challenging in terms of estimating possibilities of saving the extremity and adequate method that can make it possible. Selection of methods is additionally limited in the presence of infection at site of defect., Case Report: The female patient, diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma was treated by segmental bone resection and implantation of Kotz modular tumor endoprosthesis. After 5 years the signs of infection occured and persisted with low grade intensity. After falling, 12 years following implantation, the patient acquired periprosthetic fracture. Then endoprosthesis was removed, all along with surgical debridement of wound and application of the Ilizarov apparatus. The apparatus was applied, osteotomy of callus and the tibia performed with transport of bone segments, untill reconstruction of defect and arthrodesis of the knee was achieved., Conclusion: The Ilizarov apparatus offered us huge possibilities for management of massive bone defects with natural bone which has superior biomechanical characteristics comparing to the implant. The most frequent complication of this method is a prolonged treatment period that demands good patient selection and preparation and wide surgical experience.

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.

Introduction: Atypical femoral fractures (AFF) can be present in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This case highlights the opportunity to review the management of stress reactions, stress fractures and atypical femoral fractures, which depend on the activity of the fracture., Case Presentation: A 66-year-old female with a history of long-term bisphosphonate use underwent a total hip replacement for symptomatic osteoarthritis with a clinical presentation of right groin pain and radiographic signs of joint space narrowing and osteophyte formation. Radiographs before hip arthroplasty showed lateral cortical thickening in the ipsilateral femur in the subtrochanteric region. The patient developed a complete periprosthesic atypical femoral fracture a month after surgery at the level of the previously identified femoral cortical thickening., Discussion: Given the high amount of elderly, osteoporotic patients presenting with groin/thigh pain undergoing hip replacement, surgeons should question them about the use of bisphosphonates in the past and look for the presence of AFF. These should receive bilateral imaging studies and a metabolic bone workup in order to define the status of the fracture and determine the appropriate management before considering any other surgical intervention.

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.

Background: Modular revision femoral components allow the surgeon to make more precise intraoperative adjustments in anteversion and sizing, which may afford lower dislocation rates and improved osseointegration, but may not offer distinct advantages when compared with less expensive monoblock revision stems., Questions/purposes: We compared modular and monoblock femoral components for revision of Paprosky Type I to IIIA femoral defects to determine (1) survivorship of the stems; and (2) complications denoted as intraoperative fracture, dislocation, or failure of osseointegration., Methods: Between 2004 and 2010, participating surgeons at three centers revised 416 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Paprosky Type I to IIIA femoral defects. Of those with minimum 2-year followup (343 THAs, mean followup 51 ± 13 months), 150 (44%) were treated with modular stems and 193 (56%) were treated with monoblock, cylindrical, fully porous-coated stems. During this time, modular stems were generally chosen when there was remodeling of the proximal femur into retroversion and/or larger canal diameters (usually > 18 mm). A total of 27 patients died (6%) with stems intact before 2 years, 46 THAs (13%) were lost to followup before 2 years for reasons other than death, and there was no differential loss to followup between the study groups. The modular stems included 101 with a cylindrical distal geometry (67%) and 49 with a tapered geometry (33%). Mean age (64 versus 68 years), percentage of women (53% versus 47%), and body mass index (31 versus 30 kg/m(2)) were not different between the two cohorts, whereas there was trend toward a slightly greater case complexity in the modular group (55% versus 65% Type 3a femoral defects, p = 0.06). Kaplan-Meier survivorship was calculated for the endpoint of aseptic revision. Proportions of complications in each cohort (dislocation, intraoperative fracture, and failure of osseointegration) were compared., Results: Femoral component rerevision for any reason (including infection) was greater (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.63-2.57; p = 0.03) in the monoblock group (27 of 193 [14%]) compared with the modular cohort (10 of 150 [7%]). Femoral component survival free from aseptic rerevision was greater in the modular group with 91% survival (95% CI, 89%-95%) at 9 years compared with 86% survival (95% CI, 83%-88%) for the monoblock group in the same timeframe. There was no difference in the proportion of mechanically relevant aseptic complications (30 of 193 [16%] in the monoblock group versus 34 of 150 [23%] in the modular group, p = 0.10; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.86-2.53). There were more intraoperative fractures in the modular group (17 of 150 [11%] versus nine of 193 [5%]; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.68-2.73; p = 0.02). There were no differences in the proportions of dislocation (13 of 193 [7%] monoblock versus 14 of 150 [9%] modular; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.16; p = 0.48) or failure of osseointegration (eight of 193 [4%] monoblock versus three of 150 [2%] modular; OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.88-2.84; p = 0.19) between the two groups with the number of hips available for study., Conclusions: Although rerevisions were less common in patients treated with modular stems, aseptic complications such as intraoperative fractures were more common in that group, and the sample was too small to evaluate corrosion-related or fatigue concerns associated with modularity. We cannot therefore conclude from this that one design is superior to the other. Larger studies and pooled analyses will need to be performed to answer this question, but we believe modularity should be avoided in more straightforward cases if possible., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: The bimodular femoral neck implant (modularity in the neck section and prosthetic head) offers several implant advantages to the surgeon performing THAs, however, there have been reports of failure of bimodular femoral implants involving neck fractures or adverse tissue reaction to metal debris. We aimed to assess the results of the bimodular implants used in the THAs we performed., Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) What is the survivorship of the PROFEMUR(®) bimodular femoral neck stems? (2) What are the modes of failure of this bimodular femoral neck implant? (3) What are the major risk factors for the major modes of failure of this device?, Methods: Between 2003 and 2009, we used one family of bimodular femoral neck stems for all primary THAs (PROFEMUR(®) Z and PROFEMUR(®) E). During this period, 277 THAs (in 242 patients) were performed with these implants. One hundred seventy were done with the bimodular PROFEMUR(®) E (all are accounted for here), and when that implant was suspected of having a high risk of failure, the bimodular PROFEMUR(®) Z was used instead. One hundred seven THAs were performed using this implant (all are accounted for in this study). All bearing combinations, including metal-on-metal, metal-on-polyethylene, and ceramic-on-ceramic, are included here. Data for the cohort included patient demographics, BMI, implant dimensions, type of articular surface, length of followup, and C-reactive protein serum level. We assessed survivorship of the two stems using Kaplan-Meier curves and determined the frequency of the different modes of stem failure. For each of the major modes of failure, we performed binary logistic regression to identify associated risk factors., Results: Survivorship of the stems, using aseptic revision as the endpoint, was 85% for the patients with the PROFEMUR(®) E stems with a mean followup of 50 months (range, 1-125 months) and 85% for the PROFEMUR(®) Z with a mean followup of 50 months (range, 1-125 months)(95% CI, 74-87 months). The most common modes of failure were loosening (9% for the PROFEMUR(®) E), neck fracture (6% for the PROFEMUR(®) Z and 0.6% for the PROFEMUR(®) E), metallosis (1%), and periprosthetic fracture (1%). Only the bimodular PROFEMUR(®) E was associated with femoral stem loosening (odds ratio [OR] =1.1; 95% CI, 1.04-1.140; p = 0.032). Larger head (OR = 3.2; 95% CI, 0.7-14; p = 0.096), BMI (OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1-1.4; p = 0.038) and total offset (OR = 1.83; 95% CI, 1.13-2.9; p = 0.039) were associated with neck fracture., Conclusion: Bimodular neck junctions may be potentiated by long neck lengths, greater offset, and larger head diameters. These factors may contribute to bimodular neck failure by creating a larger moment about the neck's insertion in the stem. The PROFEMUR(®) E implant is associated with high periprosthetic loosening. Based on our experience we cannot recommend the use of bimodular femoral neck implants., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Purpose: The management of severe femoral bone loss associated with hip infection is a major problem in joint replacement surgery. Femoral megaprostheses have been rarely reported in reconstructive procedure for this complex condition. The aim of the study was to evaluate clinical results observed after such uncommon reconstruction in our case series and in a similar group of patients extracted by literature review., Methods: We evaluated clinical outcomes and eradication of sepsis in five patients who underwent femoral revision with modular femoral resection stems at our institution, and we reviewed the literature about this topic. In our case series, the femoral bone loss was grade III-B in three cases and grade IV in two cases according to the Paprosky classification. One patient was operated with one-stage revision, and four patients were operated with two-stage revision. The mean age was 72 years (range: 60 to 81 years), and the mean time of follow-up was 62 months (range: 36 to 82 months)., Results: We observed sepsis eradication in four out of five patients in our series, and clinical results were satisfactory with a mean Harris Hip Score of 74 points (range: 46 to 95 points). Cumulative results obtained considering our series and data obtained by literature review showed a mean Harris Hip Score of 75 points (range: 42 to 95 points) in patients able to walk and an overall incidence of recurrent infection in 33% of patients. Complications were observed in 8 out of 20 patients (dislocation, 6 cases; greater trochanter displacement 2 cases; and transient sciatic palsy, 1 case)., Conclusions: Revision with megaprostheses in case of infected total hip arthroplasty with severe femoral bone loss have a high risk of complication and should be carefully evaluated and used in selected patients when other surgical procedures are not feasible.

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is often performed in patients who are older and may take bisphosphonates to treat a variety of conditions, most commonly osteoporosis. However, the clinical effects of bisphosphonate use on patients who have undergone THA are not well described., Questions/purposes: (1) Is bisphosphonate use in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary THA associated with a change in the risk of all-cause revision, aseptic revision, or periprosthetic fracture compared with patients not treated with bisphosphonates? (2) Does the risk of bisphosphonate use and revision and periprosthetic fracture vary by patient bone mineral density and age?, Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 12,878 THA recipients for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis was conducted; 17.8% of patients were bisphosphonate users. Data sources for this study included a joint replacement registry (93% voluntary participation) and electronic health records and an osteoporosis screening database with complete capture of cases as part of the Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare system. The endpoints for this study were revision surgery for any cause, aseptic revision, and periprosthetic fracture. The exposure of interest was bisphosphonate use; patients were considered users if prescriptions were continuously refilled for a period equal to or longer than 6 months. Bone quality (based on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometery ordered based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation's clinical guidelines taken within 5 years of the THA) and patient age (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years) were evaluated as effect modifiers. Patient, surgeon, and hospital factors were evaluated as confounders. Cox proportional hazards models were used. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined., Results: Age- and sex-adjusted risks of all-cause (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33-0.74; p < 0.001) and aseptic revision (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.81; p = 0.004) was lower in bisphosphonate users than in nonusers. The adjusted risk of periprosthetic fractures in patients on bisphosphonates was higher than in patients not on bisphosphonates (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.13-3.27; p = 0.016). Lower risks of all-cause revision and aseptic revision were observed in patients with osteopenia (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84; and HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99, respectively) and osteoporosis (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.62; and HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11-0.99, respectively)., Conclusions: Patients considered bisphosphonate users who underwent THA had a lower risk for revision surgery. Bisphosphonate use was associated with a higher risk of periprosthetic fractures in younger patients with normal bone quantity. Evaluation of bone quality and bisphosphonate use for the diagnosis of osteoporosis is encouraged in patients with osteoarthritis who are candidates for primary THA. Further research is required to determine the optimal duration of therapy because long-term bisphosphonate use has been associated with atypical femur fractures., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Introduction: Cement extrusions on the femoral side after total hip replacement can occur in approximately 0.3% of cemented primary total hip replacements. Not recognised until a postoperative x-ray is performed, the willingness to dismiss and treat these extrusions conservatively is high., Methods: We report on 3 patients presenting with sudden onset of thigh pain associated with an inability to weight-bear after a 2 to 15 month period of uneventful healthy recovery from cemented total hip replacement. On immediate postoperative x-rays occult cement extrusion in the posterolateral circumference of the femoral component tip were present. X-rays and CT scans showed no fracture signs. Scintigraphy revealed late increased uptake at the extrusion height. With the hypothesis of imminent femoral fatigue fracture, all patients underwent revision surgery. The defect sites were surgically exposed, thoroughly cleaned of cement, filled with iliac crest bone graft and stabilised with tension band plating., Results: This procedure resulted in fully recovered asymptomatic patients at 6 weeks and after a mean follow-up period of 48 months, as demonstrated by their pain level and tolerance of full weight bearing., Conclusions: These cases lead us to adopt a low threshold for immediate revision when occult cement extrusion is recognised near the tip of a cemented stem on postoperative films, and to adopt a low threshold for surgical revision when, in the presence of cement extrusion, thigh pain is a complaint. We favour tension band plating and bone grafting over more complex implant revisions since a fast recovery was achieved in these patients.

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.

Background and Aims: Periprosthetic supracondylar fractures after total knee arthroplasty are often associated with poor bone stock, fracture comminution, and loose components. Current operative methods include plating, intramedullary nailing, and re-arthroplasty, depending on the fracture type. The aim of the study was to assess the outcome of operatively treated periprosthetic supracondylar fractures at our institute with special interest on the use of strut grafts in association with plating., Materials and Methods: In all, 68 patients were included in the study. They had been treated operatively due to a periprosthetic supracondylar fracture at our center between 2000 and 2010. The data of these patients were retrospectively collected from the electronic patient archives. Fractures with a fixed prosthesis component were treated using internal fixation provided that there was enough bone for osteosynthesis in the distal fracture fragment (39 patients). Fractures with a loose prosthesis component were treated using re-arthroplasty (29 patients). The demographics of the two treatment groups did not differ statistically significantly. Death or any re-operation was chosen as the endpoint of follow-up. Cumulative survival percentages were estimated for each treatment group., Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups regarding clinical outcome. Clinical outcome was not assessable in nine patients. A positive clinical outcome was reported in 52 cases (88.1%). The survival of both laminofixation and re-arthroplasty was 75% at 3 years, but the survival of laminofixated fractures with strut graft was 80% compared to that of 51% without strut grafts. In all, 16 patients (24%) had a post-operative surgical site complication: seven infections (10%), six non-unions (15%), and three patellar dislocations (11%)., Conclusions: Post-operative surgical site complications were relatively common in these mainly elderly female patients. The survival percentages of the re-arthroplasty and laminofixation groups were similar. The use of strut grafts in association with plating may decrease re-operation rate., (© The Finnish Surgical Society 2014.)

Purpose: To describe the characteristics of patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures after hemiarthroplasty and analyze their treatment., Material and Method: An observational, longitudinal, retrospective study was conducted on a series of 17 patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip hemiarthroplasty. Fourteen fractures were treated surgically. The characteristics of patients, fractures and treatment outcomes in terms of complications, mortality and functionality were analyzed., Results: The large majority (82%) of patients were women, the mean age was 86 years and with an ASA index of 3 or 4 in 15 patients. Ten fractures were type B. There were 8 general complications, one deep infection, one mobilization of a non-exchanged hemiarthroplasty, and 2 non-unions. There were 85% consolidated fractures, and only 5 patients recovered the same function prior to the injury. At the time of the study 9 patients had died (53%)., Discussion: Periprosthetic femoral fractures after hemiarthroplasty will increase in the coming years and their treatment is difficult., Conclusion: Periprosthetic femoral fractures after hemiarthroplasty are more common in women around 90 years-old, and usually occur in patients with significant morbidity. Although the Vancouver classification is reliable, simple and reproducible, it is only a guide to decide on the best treatment in a patient often fragile. The preoperative planning is essential when deciding a surgical treatment., (Copyright © 2014 SECOT. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Background: Postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures are an increasing concern after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Identifying and understanding predisposing factors are important to mitigating future risk. Femoral stem design may be one such factor., Questions/purposes: The goals of our study were to compare the (1) frequency of periprosthetic femur fracture and implant survivorship; (2) time to fracture in those patients who experienced periprosthetic femur fracture; and (3) predictive risk factors for periprosthetic femur fracture between a unique stem design with an exaggerated proximal taper angle and other contemporary cementless, proximally fixed, tapered stems., Methods: We reviewed all hips in which a femoral hip component with a uniquely exaggerated proximal taper angle (ProxiLock) was implanted during primary THA at a single academic institution. That group of patients was compared with a cohort of patients who underwent primary THA during the same time interval (1995-2008) in which any other cementless, proximally fixed, tapered stem design was used. The two groups differed somewhat in terms of sex, age, and body mass index, although these differences were of unclear clinical significance. During the study, 3964 primary THAs were performed using six different designs of cementless, proximally fixed, tapered femoral hip prostheses. There were 736 stems in the ProxiLock (PL) patient group and 3228 stems in the non-ProxiLock (non-PL) group. In general, the stem highlighted in this study became the routine cementless stem used for primary THA for three arthroplasty surgeons without specific patient or radiographic indications. Periprosthetic fractures were identified within each group. The incidence, timing, type, and treatment required for each fracture were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine study patient survival free of any postoperative fracture. Radiographs and the electronic medical record of each patient who sustained a fracture were reviewed. Followup was comparable between groups at all time points., Results: The Kaplan-Meier estimate for fracture-free patient survival was worse in the PL group at all time points with survival of 98.4% (range, 97.4%-99.3%), 97.1% (range, 95.9%-98.3%), 95.4% (range, 93.8%-97.0%), and 92.6% (range, 89.6%-95.3%) at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years, respectively, for the PL patient group compared with 99.8% (range, 99.7%-99.9%), 99.6% (range, 99.3%-99.8%), 99.3% (range, 99.0%-99.6%), and 98.4% (range, 97.5%-99.1%) in the non-PL patient group (p < 0.001). Patients in the PL group had increased cumulative probability of both early and late fractures with cumulative probabilities of fracture of 2.5% (range, 1.3%-3.6%) at 90 days and 7.4% (range, 4.7%-10.4%) at 10 years compared with probabilities of 0.3% (range, 0.1%-0.5%) at 90 days and 1.6% (range, 0.8%-2.5%) at 10 years in the non-PL group (p < 0.001). Patients in the PL group had an increased risk of postoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (hazard ratio [HR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-9.1; p < 0.001); fracture requiring reoperation (HR, 8.4; 95% CI, 4.4-15.9); p < 0.001); and fracture requiring stem revision (HR, 9.1; 95% CI, 4.5-18.5; p < 0.001). Age older than 60 years was also a risk factor for fracture (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.1-6.4), but sex, body mass index, and preoperative diagnosis were not predictive., Conclusions: Hips implanted with an uncemented femoral stem, which has a uniquely exaggerated proximal taper angle, had an increased risk of both early and late postoperative periprosthetic femur fracture. The majority of patients with a fracture underwent reoperation or stem revision. The unique proximal geometry, lack of axial support from the smooth cylindrical distal stem as well as resorption of the hydroxyapatite coating and poor ongrowth with subsequent subsidence may contribute to increased risk of fracture. Although this particular stem has recently been discontinued by the manufacturer, these findings are important in regard to followup care for patients with this stem implanted as well as for future cementless stem design in general., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Use of large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has created new and unique modes of failure for this type of articulation. These unique modes are in addition to the traditional modes of failure seen in conventional THA, which include instability, osteolysis, infection, iliopsoas tendinitis, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic fracture. Ion levels and cross-sectional imaging are helpful when evaluating a MoM patient in the identification of adverse local tissue reactions. Unique modes of failure in MoM THA include tissue necrosis, metallosis-induced osteolysis, skin hypersensitivity reactions, and rarely systemic cobaltism. This article outlines the evaluation and treatment of modes of failure in MoM THA., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Successful treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures, like all fractures, requires careful attention to understand the fracture pattern nuances, identifying and executing a rational treatment approach, and providing an appropriate postoperative recovery protocol. Unlike most other fractures, modification of standard techniques is often required to obtain a stable fixation construct, and there is a greater role for revision arthroplasty in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. Optimal indications for surgical repair versus revision arthroplasty and optimal postoperative weight-bearing protocols remain uncertain. Reported outcomes for patients with periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures are generally good and are relatively consistent. Results for periprosthetic distal femur fractures, however, are less good and more inconsistent. Both periprosthetic femoral shaft and distal femur fractures are associated with relatively high mortality rates, approaching that of patients with hip fractures. This review should provide insight into the current solutions and challenges for the treatment of patients with periprosthetic femur fractures.

Mechanical failure of the femoral component following total hip arthroplasty is a relatively uncommon complication that has been previously well-described in the literature. Modular, cementless implants have become a popular option in revision total hip arthroplasty. They offer the distinct advantage of optimizing joint kinematics through varying the degree of version, offset, and leg length. We report the case of early fatigue fracture of the Restoration (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) femoral prosthesis. The following is a detailed description of this case. This report details the events sur - rounding stem failure, and the technique of reconstruction used to deal with this failure.

A periprosthetic fracture is a fracture around or in proximity of a prosthetic implant. As more and more prostheses are implanted, the incidence of periprosthetic fractures also increases. Several risk factors have been outlined, some due to the patient, and some due to the implant itself. Key points in diagnosis are the case history and the imaging, as they allow the distinction between a well-fixed and a loose prosthesis. Correct classification is crucial for the treatment choice, which can be non-operative or consist in an osteosynthesis or in a revision arthroplasty, depending on the patient's general medical condition and the local status.

Objective: Intramedullary stabilization of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures by interlocking nailing. Closed reduction by retrograde nail can be combined with the use of transmedullary support screws (TMS principle of Stedtfeld)., Indications: Supracondylar fractures above stable knee arthroplasty (Rorabeck types I and II), femoral shaft fractures ipsilateral of stable hip and/or knee arthroplasty, contraindications for antegrade nailing, Contraindications: Closed box design of femoral implant, intercondylar distance of the femoral component smaller than nail diameter, more than 40° flexion deficit of the knee, inability to place two bicortical distal interlocking screws. Relative contraindication: insufficient overlap with proximal implants, Surgical Technique: Supine position and knee flexion of approximately 45°. Fluoroscopy should be possible between the knee and hip. Longitudinal skin incision into the pre-existing scar over the patellar tendon which is then split. The nail entry point is located in the intercondylar groove at the deepest point of Blumensaat's line, often predetermined by the femoral arthroplasty component. Reaming is rarely necessary. Transmedullary support screws may correct axial malalignment during nail insertion. Static interlocking in a direction from lateral to medial by the aiming device. Insertion of locking cap., Postoperative Management: Retrograde nailing normally allows full weight bearing. Range of motion does not need to be restricted., Results: Out of 101 fractures treated between 2000 and 2013 with a Targon RF nail (Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) 10 were periprosthetic, all were classified as Rorabeck type II and of these 6 fractures were metaphyseal and 4 were diaphyseal. In four cases proximal implants were present. The mean operative time for periprosthetic fracture fixation did not significantly differ from that for normal retrograde femoral nailing. There were no postoperative infections, fixation failures or delayed unions. There was one revision for secondary correction of maltorsion.

Objective: Hip revision arthroplasty of a loose stem in the case of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures and cerclage wiring of the femoral shaft., Indications: Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur., Contraindications: Periprosthetic joint infection. Interprosthetic femoral fractures between the ends of hip and knee prosthetic stems that require total replacement of the femur., Surgical Technique: Extended posterolateral approach to the tip of the fracture. Exposure along the septum intermusculare laterale with ligation of the perforating vessels below the fracture. Longitudinal osteotomy of the proximal fragment above the linea aspera using an oscillating saw under cooling. Ventral proximal osteotomy at the corner of the vasto-gluteal sling after short muscular incision using an osteotome chisel. Opening of the proximal fragment with lifting up of the bony flap like a transfemoral approach. Removal of the loosened prosthetic stem and possibly the cement. Preparation of the distal fixation zone of the modular cementless revision stem in the isthmus of the femur distal of the fracture. Implantation of the distal component of the modular cementless revision stem. Use of additional distal interlocking screws in cases of destroyed isthmus with a fixation zone of less than 3 cm for the distal prosthetic component. Trial reposition after combination with the proximal trial component in situ. Assembly with the original proximal component in situ. Reposition with the original proximal component. Wound closure., Postoperative Management: Thrombosis prophylaxis, physiotherapy, gait training with partial loading of the limb at 10 kg for a period of 6 weeks with hip flexion limited to 70°. Then, free range of movement and increased loading by 10 kg per week., Results: In all, 23 patients with periprosthetic fractures of Vancouver type B2 (15 patients) and type B3 (eight patients)-in 15 women and eight men in the age range of 70.7 ± 12.2 (42-88) years-were followed up for at least 5 years. All fractures healed with a mean time of 14.4 ± 5.3 weeks. No cases of subsidence of the stem were observed and, according to the classification of Engh et al. concerning the biological fixation of the stem, there was bony ingrowth fixation in 21 cases and two cases of stable fibrous fixation. One dislocation occurred and there were no cases of intraoperative fracture. The Harris Hip Score rose continually following the operations: from a 3-month postoperative score of 65.0 ± 16.8 points, it rose to 86.9 ± 16.2 points after 24 months and to 89.0 ± 14.3 points after 5 years. According to the classification of Beals and Tower, all results were rated as excellent, i.e., the prefracture functional status was restored in all cases.

Periprosthetic femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty are a rising concern; however, when properly diagnosed, they can be managed nonoperatively or operatively in the form of locking plate fixation, intramedullary nailing, and arthroplasty. The degree of osteoporosis, stability of the femoral implant, and goals of the patient are a few critical variables in determining the ideal treatment. Despite excellent outcomes from each of these operative choices, the risk of nonunion, malunion, instability, and refracture cannot be ignored., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The increasing implantation rates of total hip and knee prostheses have been accompanied by a corresponding rise in periprosthetic fractures (PPF), most often affecting the femur., Method: This review is based on a selective search of the PubMed database for articles in English and German. The search was carried out with a set of pertinent medical subject headings (MeSH) and as a free text search employing a logical combination of search terms (evidence grade III-IV)., Results: Soft-tissue-sparing, stable-angle plate osteosynthesis with a firmly seated implant is a safe treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF). A correct assessment of the stability of the prosthesis is a prerequisite for the success of treatment. A loose prosthesis must be surgically revised, and a failed osteosynthesis can also necessitate revision of the prosthesis. The conservative management of PPFF is generally not indicated, as it has a high complication rate., Conclusion: The treatment of periprosthetic fractures requires competence, not just in osteosynthetic techniques, but also in endoprosthesis implantation and revision. Careful preoperative planning to select the proper treatment is essential, and the necessary equipment must be on hand.

Periprosthetic femoral fractures following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) represent an emerging challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon, because of their increasing incidence and negative impact on clinical and functional patient outcome. For these reasons, in the last decade, many efforts were made to prevent and manage  this complication  and a large number of studies were focused on finding out the best treatment. The type of treatment depends on several factors such as morphology and location of the fracture, implant stability, quality and quantity of bone stock, patient's age and clinical conditions. Fractures that cause loosening of the stem always require its revision, with a contextual assessment of the quality and quantity of remaining bone stock, which is generally good in type B2 and poor in type B3 according to Vancouver's classification. The latter may require the use of bone grafts. In this context, the  authors performed the following study and analyzed the results of 45 patients treated surgically for periprosthetic femoral fractures with revision of the femoral stem during a fourteen years period, between June 1999 and June 2013.