OUTCOME OF PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURES IN HIP ARTHROPLASTY

• Main Authors: A. A. Korytkin, Y. M. El Moudni, K. A. Kovaldov, Y. S. Novikova, B. Yu. Belousov
• Format: Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics 2018-10-01
• Series: Travmatologiâ i Ortopediâ Rossii
• Subjects: hip joint arthroplasty; periprosthetic fractures; complications
• Online Access: https://journal.rniito.org/jour/article/view/1043

Periprosthetic fractures are one of the main reasons for revision surgery according to the data of large joint replacement registers. Treatment of patients with periprosthetic fractures is associated with a big number of complications and still keeps its relevance. Purpose of the study is to evaluate treatment outcome of patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures in hip replacement. Material and Methods. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of medical histories of 76 patients who underwent treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. The patients were divided into groups by the Unified Classification System (UCS). Follow up period was from 6 to 124 months (mean of 34.90±28.81). Results. 3 cases (3.9%) of periprosthetic femoral fractures were the complications after primary hip arthroplasty and occurred intraoperatively, 75 cases (96.1%) were complications after revision surgery; 56 cases (71.8%) were reported with uncemented and 22 cases (28.2%) with cemented femoral components. In 30 cases (38.5%) fractures had a iatrogenic nature and occurred intraoperatively, in 48 cases (61.5%) — occurred due to high- and low energy trauma. Type B fractures were observed most often — in 53 cases (68%). Conservative treatment, fixation by cerclage or by plate and screws has proven to be the least effective operative options. In the group of patients with extended osteotomy of the greater trochanter the healing was achieved in 90.5% of cases, while in the group without osteotomy — in 75% of cases. Low healing rate of periprosthetic fractures was observed for A and B1 type fractures (65% and 66.7% respectively). Follow up of patients with B2, B3 and C type fractures demonstrated consolidation in more than 80% of cases. Various complications were reported in 17 cases (21.8%). Conclusion. Effective treatment of patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures was associated with extended osteotomy of the greater trochanter (γ = 0.51; p = 0.032), absence of complications in postoperative period (R = 0.55; p = 0.00001), B2, B3 and C fracture types (γ = 0.40; p = 0.02) and use of revision uncemented femoral components with distal fixation (γ = 0.35; p = 0.018). In the authors opinion use of sutures or cerclage wires are not effective in cases of trochanteric fractures and stable femoral components; it would be preferable to perform internal fixation by a plate with hooks such as Dall-Miles. In case of doubts in regard of stem stability the revision should rather stipulate use of uncemented femoral components, in particular long stems with distal fixation.