Search

Bone stock during knee reimplantation for infection is compromised and may contribute to intraoperative fracture. This study aims to describe the prevalence of said fractures. A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent a staged TKA reimplantation for a periprosthetic infection. Patients who sustained an intraoperative fracture were analyzed. The fracture timing, location, and treatment were recorded. Fracture healing, component stability, and need for re-revision were noted. Between 1990 and 2010, 894 reimplantations were performed. Twenty-three fractures occurred in 21 patients (2.3%) with mean follow-up of 56 months (range: 4-122). Thirteen fractures occurred in femora, 7 in tibiae, and 3 in patellae. Four occurred during resection, while 19 occurred during reimplantation. Observation and wires/cables were the most common treatments utilized. At final follow-up, 91% of fractures demonstrated union and 75% of patients demonstrated stable components. Eight patients (38%) required a revision, the majority of which were performed for re-infection., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hip arthroplasty has become the standard treatment for end-stage hip disease, allowing pain relief and restoration of mobility in large numbers of patients; however, pain after hip arthroplasty occurs in as many as 40% of cases, and despite improved longevity, all implants eventually fail with time. Owing to the increasing numbers of hip arthroplasty procedures performed, the demographic factors, and the metal-on-metal arthroplasty systems with their associated risk for the development of adverse local tissue reactions to metal products, there is a growing demand for an accurate diagnosis of symptoms related to hip arthroplasty implants and for a way to monitor patients at risk. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has evolved into a powerful diagnostic tool for the evaluation of hip arthroplasty implants. Optimized conventional pulse sequences and metal artifact reduction techniques afford improved depiction of bone, implant-tissue interfaces, and periprosthetic soft tissue for the diagnosis of arthroplasty-related complications. Strategies for MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants are presented, as well as the imaging appearances of common causes of painful and dysfunctional hip arthroplasty systems, including stress reactions and fractures; bone resorption and aseptic loosening; polyethylene wear-induced synovitis and osteolysis; adverse local tissue reactions to metal products; infection; heterotopic ossification; tendinopathy; neuropathy; and periprosthetic neoplasms. A checklist is provided for systematic evaluation of MR images of hip arthroplasty implants. MR imaging with optimized conventional pulse sequences and metal artifact reduction techniques is a comprehensive imaging modality for the evaluation of the hip after arthroplasty, contributing important information for diagnosis, prognosis, risk stratification, and surgical planning., (©RSNA, 2014.)

Background: The growing utilization of total joint replacement will increase the frequency of its complications, including periprosthetic fracture. The prevalence and risk factors of periprosthetic fracture require further study, particularly over the course of long-term follow-up. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and risk factors for periprosthetic fractures occurring in recipients of total hip replacement., Methods: We identified Medicare beneficiaries who had elective primary total hip replacement (THR) for non-fracture diagnoses between July 1995 and June 1996. We followed them using Medicare Part A claims data through 2008. We used ICD-9 codes to identify periprosthetic femoral fractures occurring from 2006-2008. We used the incidence density method to calculate the annual incidence of these fractures and Cox proportional hazards models to identify risk factors for periprosthetic fracture. We also calculated the risk of hospitalization over the subsequent year., Results: Of 58,521 Medicare beneficiaries who had elective primary THR between July 1995 and June 1996, 32,463 (55%) survived until January 2006. Of these, 215 (0.7%) developed a periprosthetic femoral fracture between 2006 and 2008. The annual incidence of periprosthetic fracture among these individuals was 26 per 10,000 person-years. In the Cox model, a greater risk of periprosthetic fracture was associated with having had a total knee replacement (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.30, 2.55) or a revision total hip replacement (HR1.40, 95% CI 0.95, 2.07) between the primary THR and 2006. Compared to those without fractures, THR recipients who sustained periprosthetic femoral fracture had three-fold higher risk of hospitalization in the subsequent year (89% vs. 27%, p<0.0001)., Conclusion: A decade after primary THR, periprosthetic fractures occur annually in 26 per 10,000 persons and are especially frequent in those with prior total knee or revision total hip replacements.

Although periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum are relatively uncommon after total hip arthroplasty, a variety of patient-, surgeon-, and implant-related risk factors can contribute to the occurrence of this serious complication. These risk factors, combined with the increased use of cementless acetabular cups, will likely result in an increased prevalence of these fractures in the future. By better understanding the risk factors, classification schemes, and treatment options for periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum, orthopaedic surgeons can achieve better outcomes for their patients.

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most effective procedures for managing end-stage hip arthritis. The burden of revision THA procedures is expected to increase along with the rise in number of primary THAs. The major indications for revision THA include instability, aseptic loosening, infection, osteolysis, wear-related complications, periprosthetic fracture, component malposition, and catastrophic implant fracture. Each of these conditions may be associated with mild or advanced bone loss. Careful patient evaluation and bone loss classification guide preoperative planning and overall patient care. Historically, uncemented fixation has provided the best results, but cemented fixation is required in some cases.

Total hip replacements (THR) with modular femoral components (stem-neck interface) make it possible to adapt to extramedullary femoral parameters (anteversion, offset, and length) theoretically improving muscle function and stability. Nevertheless, adding a new interface has its disadvantages: reduced mechanical resistance, fretting corrosion and material fatigue fracture. We report the case of a femoral stem fracture of the female part of the component where the modular morse taper of the neck is inserted. An extended trochanteric osteotomy was necessary during revision surgery because the femoral stump could not be grasped for extraction, so that a long stem had to be used. In this case, the patient had the usual risk factors for modular neck failure: he was an active overweight male patient with a long varus neck. This report shows that the female part of the stem of a small femoral component may also be at increased failure risk and should be added to the list of risk factors. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of this type of failure., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Imaging studies are central to the evaluation of persistent or recurrent symptoms after hip arthroplasty. The evaluation starts with radiographs and may be followed by arthrography, aspiration, scintigraphy, sonography, computed tomography, and MR imaging. Common etiologies of a painful or dysfunctional hip arthroplasty are mechanical loosening, polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis, adverse local tissue reaction to metal wear products, infection, fractures, heterotopic ossification, tendinopathy, and nerve injury. MR imaging with optimized protocols and dedicated techniques for metal artifact reduction is the most comprehensive imaging modality. In this article, we discuss and illustrate the imaging appearances of these conditions with a focus on the MR imaging evaluation., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total hip replacement can present some unique challenges to the treating reconstructive orthopedic surgeon. Treatment may differ depending on fracture location, bone condition, implant stability, patient characteristics, and surgeon experience. It is imperative that adequate and sufficient mechanical fixation be achieved in the treatment of these patients. It is crucial that the treating orthopaedic surgeon have a clear and effective treatment plan to manage these complex cases. The patient's final outcome is dependent on fracture union, implant stability, early functional recovery, and return to pre-injury independence. This review presents an overview of the current diagnostic and treatment approaches, with the goal of providing a template for optimal decision-making when dealing with these complex injuries.

Fracture around the acetabulum and femur in total hip arthroplasty is a possible complication, sometimes with difficult surgical solution, namely when a sepsis is present. Periprosthetic hip fractures were classified according to a modified Vancouver classification. We treated 112 patients (67 men and 45 women) with periprosthetic hip fractures: 105 femoral fractures (94%) and seven acetabular fractures (6%). Mean follow-up was 10.6 years. For Type A (seven cases - 7%), B1 (10 cases - 10%) or C (13 cases - 12%) fractures around well fixed femoral stems we only fixed the fractures. For Type B2 (17 cases - 16%), B3 (46 cases - 44%) and D (12 cases - 11%, with associated fractures, not contemplated in the Vancouver classification) we used an uncemented long femoral stem, fixation with metallic cables and cancellous bone allografts to fill the femoral bone loss. We observed a deep infection in three patients (2.7%), three early hip dislocations treated by closed reductions, two cases with asymptomatic trochanteric non-union and one femoral refracture. In the three infection cases we performed two-stage revision with cementless hip prosthesis, using an antibiotic-loaded cement hip spacer (three to eight months), a six weeks period of parenteral antibiotics and we performed articular aspiration before revision surgery. Until now, we did not observe any re-infection. It is very important to make an early diagnosis, isolate micro-organisms and ensure their antibiotic susceptibility. The surgery solution depends on the well fixed implants and periprosthetic osteolysis and articular instability.

Adequate fixation at the time of cementless stem implantation depends on the operator's experience. An objective evaluation method to determine whether the stem has been appropriately implanted may be helpful. We studied the relationship between the hammering sound frequency during stem implantation and internal stress in a femoral model, and evaluated the possible usefulness of hammering sound frequency analysis for preventing intraoperative fracture. Three types of cementless stem (BiCONTACT®, SL-PLUS®, and AI-Hip®) were used. Surgeons performed stem insertion using a procedure similar to that employed in a routine operation. Stress was estimated by finite element analysis, the hammering force was measured, and frequency analysis of hammering sound data obtained using a microphone. Finite element analysis showed a decrease in the hammering sound frequency with an increase in the estimated maximum stress. When a decrease in frequency was observed, adequate hammering had occurred, and the continuation of hammering risked fracture. Based on the relationship between stress and frequency, the evaluation of changes in frequency may be useful for preventing the development of intraoperative fractures. Using our method, when a decrease in frequency is observed, the hammering force should be reduced. Hammering sound frequency analysis may allow the prediction of bone fractures that can be visually confirmed, and may be a useful objective evaluation method for the prevention of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during stem insertion.

Peri-prosthetic fractures (PPF) are a recognised complication following hip arthroplasty. Prosthesis design and type influence PPF pattern. Surgeons rely on classification systems, such as the Vancouver, to aid treatment planning. This study highlights a specific fracture pattern that occurs with cemented well-fixed polished, tapered, collarless (PTC) stems. We reviewed a consecutive series of 21 PPF around well fixed PTC stems. The majority of the fractures were classified pre-operatively as Vancouver B2 (14/21), but there were also B1 (6/21) and A type fractures. The B2 fractures had common radiological and intra-operative findings: a spiral fracture with extensive fragmentation of bone and cement, debonding of cement from the implant, cement fracture, and a well-fixed cement-bone interface. Reconstruction of these fractures was more difficult than suggested by the radiographs. Two of the six patients who were considered to have a Vancouver B1 fracture underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and had treatment-related complications. Retrospective review of the radiographs showed subtle features, such as subsidence of the stem into the centraliser, that are characteristic of a B2 fracture pattern. In summary, it is important to recognise this fracture pattern around secure PTC stems in order to prevent misinterpretation of the fracture as a Vancouver B1 rather than a B2, leading to failure of treatment, and to alert the surgeon that complex reconstruction will be required because of the extensive fragmentation., (Crown Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Periprosthetic fracture of the proximal femur involving the lesser trochanter (the Vancouver type A(LT)) is an uncommon occurrence. As it is basically an avulsion fracture of the attachment of the iliopsoas, it does not destabilize the stem and can be treated nonsurgically. In contrast, there is a so-called type "new B2" periprosthetic fracture of the lesser trochanter, which includes a segment of the proximal medial femoral cortex. This is usually seen within 6 weeks of the index procedure, typically following insertion of a tapered, cementless stem within a demineralized femur. This may be due to an unrecognized intraoperative fracture that subsequently displaced under load, or it may occur soon after, during rehabilitation. It is important to distinguish this fracture from the type A(LT), because it is associated with destabilization of the stem and requires early reintervention. The principles of treatment depend on the timing of the fracture and the size of the medial fracture fragment. If recognized intraoperatively as a nonpropagated cortical crack, then extraction of the broach or stem followed by cerclage cable fixation and reinsertion of the stem is adequate in most cases, with protected weight bearing for 6 weeks. If diagnosed postoperatively, or if the fracture fragment is larger, then management with a stem that gains fixation distal to the fracture is required. This distinction between the pseudo type A(LT) and the type "new B2" is important to recognize if appropriate treatment is to be prescribed and a satisfactory outcome is to be assured., (Copyright 2011, SLACK Incorporated.)

One of the complications of total hip arthroplasty is intraoperative periprosthetic fracture. Periprosthetic fracture is divided into acetabular fracture and femoral fracture. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fracture include use of minimally invasive techniques, press-fit cementless stems, revision operations and osteoporosis. It has been recognized that treatment of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures should be based on the classification of the Vancouver system for intraoperative fractures.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance between administrative and clinical diagnosis and procedure codes for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Concordance between administrative and clinical records was determined for 764 consecutive revision TJA procedures from 4 hospitals. For revision total hip arthroplasty, concordance between clinical diagnoses and administrative claims was very good for dislocation, mechanical loosening, and periprosthetic joint infection (all kappa > 0.6), but considerably lower for prosthetic implant failure/breakage and other mechanical complication (both kappa < 0.25). Similarly, for revision total knee arthroplasty diagnoses, concordance was very good for periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection, mechanical loosening, and osteolysis (all kappa > 0.60), but much lower for implant failure/breakage and other mechanical complication (both kappa < 0.24). Concordance for TJA-specific procedure codes was very good only for revision total knee arthroplasty patellar component revisions and tibial insert exchange procedures. Total (all-component) revisions were overcoded for hips (00.70) and undercoded for knees (00.80). Improved clinical documentation and continued education are needed to enhance the value of these codes., (Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The absolute number of periprosthetic fractures seen by the orthopaedic surgeon is increasing. The basic principles of fracture management include preoperative patient optimization and determining the stability of the associated components. Loose components require revision, whereas fractures associated with well-fixed implants are generally treated with internal fixation. Although these fractures are challenging to manage, advances in surgical techniques, including the use of locking plates for internal fixation and improved revision systems and biomaterials (such as highly porous metals), offer the surgeon enhanced tools for treating these complex clinical disorders.