Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2017; 84(1):52-58 | DOI: 10.55095/achot2017/008

Periprotetické zlomeniny femuru po implantaci aloplastiky kyčelního kloubu: naše výsledky a komplikace při léčeníPůvodní práce

T. PAVELKA*, M. SALÁŠEK, D. WEISOVÁ
Klinika ortopedie a traumatologie pohybového ústrojí Fakultní nemocnice Plzeň

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The study consists of a retroactive evaluation of results of surgical treatment in patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip replacement and a comparison with results reported in the literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
In the period from 2003 to 2013, a total of 83 patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip replacement were treated at our clinic, namely 69 women and 14 men. The mean age in the cohort was 74 years (range 47-87). The Vancouver classification was used to grade the fractures. The cohort included 31 patients with type B1 fracture, 25 patients with type B2 fracture, 8 patients with type B3 fracture, and 19 patients with type C fracture.
Altogether 80 patients underwent a surgery, 3 patients with non-displaced type B1 fracture were treated conservatively. The mechanism of injury was a simple fall in 75 % of primary endoprostheses and in 56% of revision endoprostheses. The average time to fracture was 7.6 years in primary implant and 3.6 years in revision endoprosthesis.
In fractures with a well-fixed stem (type B1 and C) plate osteosynthesis was used. In case of a comminution zone, osteosynthesis was followed by spongioplasty. In patients with a loose stem (type B2 and B3), the fracture was treated with a revision uncemented stem. In two cases a combination of a revision stem and a massive corticocancellous bone graft was used.
The evaluation was performed using the Harris Hip Score and the minimum follow-up from the surgery was 3 years.

RESULTS:
In the group of patients with type B1 fracture, 28 patients were treated surgically. An excellent result was achieved in 22 patients (84%), in 4 patients (16%) the result was very good. The remaining 2 patients failed to meet the requirement of the minimum follow-up of 3 years.
In the group of patients with type B2 fractures, composed of 25 patients, the femoral component was replaced with a revision uncemented stem with cerclage wires or titanium tapes or cables. Osseointegration of the stem was recorded in 24 patients, one female patient died 4 months after the surgery. An excellent result was achieved in 16 patients (64%), a very good result in 4 patients (16%). The remaining 5 patients (20%) failed to meet the minimum follow-up of 3 years.
In 8 patients with type B3 trauma, the reimplant of a revision stem was supplemented by spongioplasty, in 2 cases by solid corticocancellous bone grafts with cerclage. In this group osseointegration occurred in all the cases within 6-9 months. The follow-up was affected by the older age of patients and 6 patients died during the follow-up period. The requirement of a follow-up longer than 3 years was met in 2 patients (25%) only and the result was considered very good.
In the group of 19 patients with type C fracture, plate osteosynthesis was performed, which was in 12 cases complemented with spongioplasty. Healing occurred within 6 months in 13 patients (72%), within 9 months in 3 patients (17%) and in 2 patients (11%) reoperation was carried out due to fixation failure. One female patient died 16 days after the surgery. An excellent result was achieved in 15 patients (83%), in the remaining three patients the follow-up was shorter than three years due to their death.

DISCUSSION:
Periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip replacement is a rare but feared complication. Its incidence ranges from 0.1 to 4%. It occurs most frequently 7 to 8 years after the primary implant and 3 to 4 years after the revision of endoprosthesis implantation. The main risk factor is the loosening of stem of endoprosthesis. Another risk factor is osteoporosis. Age, sex and obesity do not constitute significant risk factors. Stem stability and presence of bone defects are the main criteria in favour of surgical treatment. If the stem remains well fixed, the osteosynthesis is opted for, whereas if the stem is loose, its replacement has to be performed. The management of bone defects is an integral part of femoral reconstruction and restoration of endoprosthesis stability.

CONCLUSIONS:
Surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures, thanks to the introduction of new implants for osteosynthesis and development of new stems for revision endoprostheses, helps achieve ever better results. Of major importance for choosing the treatment method is correct classification of fracture and stem stability. Poor bone quality is a common feature, therefore a perfect mechanical fixation is necessary. The long-term results are affected primarily by the patient s age.

Klíčová slova: periprosthetic femoral fractures, surgical treatment, results, complications

Zveřejněno: 1. únor 2017  Zobrazit citaci

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
PAVELKA T, SALÁŠEK M, WEISOVÁ D. Periprotetické zlomeniny femuru po implantaci aloplastiky kyčelního kloubu: naše výsledky a komplikace při léčení. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2017;84(1):52-58. doi: 10.55095/achot2017/008. PubMed PMID: 28253947.
Stáhnout citaci

Reference

  1. Abdel MP, Houdek MT, Watts CD, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femoral fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2016;98:468-474. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  2. Berry DJ. Treatment of Vancouver B3 periprosthetic femur fractures with a fluted tapered stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:224-231. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  3. Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2658-2662. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  4. Dennis MG, Simon JA, Kummer FJ. Fixation of periprostetic femoral shaft fractures:a biomechanical comparison of two techniques. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15:177-180. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  5. Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect AAOS. 1995;44:293-304. Přejít na PubMed...
  6. Ehlinger M, Bonnoment F, Adam P. Periprosthetic femoral fractures:the minimally invasive fixation option. Orthop Trauma Surg Res. 2010;96:304-309. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  7. Ehlinger M, Adam P, Mosr T, Delpin D, Bonnoment F. Typ C periprosthetic fracture treated with locking plate fixation with a mean follow-up of 2 5 year. Orthop Trauma Surg Res. 2010;96:42-47. Přejít k původnímu zdroji...
  8. Fulkerson E, Koval K, Preston CF. Fixation of periprosthetical femoral shaft fractures associeted with cemented femoral stem:a biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plating J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:89-93. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  9. Haddad FS, Duncan CP, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Gros AE, Chandler HP. Periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed implants:use of cortical onlay allografts with or without a plate. J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:945-950. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  10. Hernandez JT, Holck K. Periprosthetic femoral fractures: When I use struct grafts and why? Injury. 2015;46:43-46. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  11. Choi JK, Gardner TR, Yoon E. The effect of fixation technique on the stiffness of comminuted Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(Suppl):124-128. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  12. Joestl J, Hofbauer M, Lang N, Tiefenboeck T, Hajdu S. Locking compresion plate versus revision-prosthesis for Vancouver type B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2016; 47:939-943. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  13. Khashan M, Amar E, Drexler M, Chechik O, Cohen Z, Steinberg E. Superior outcome of struct allograft-augmented plate fixation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around a stable femoral stem. Injury. 2013;44:1552-1560. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  14. Krämer KL, Maichl FP. Scores Bewertungsschemata und Klassifikationen in Orthopädie und Traumatologie. Thieme, Stuttgart - New York, 1993, pp.201-202.
  15. Lindahl H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fractures around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2007;38:651-654. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  16. Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H, Herberts P, Malchau H. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1215-1222. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  17. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:857-865. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  18. Lindahl H, Malchau H, Oden A, Garellick G. Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:26-30. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  19. Mulay S, Hassan T, Birtwistle S, Power R. Management of types B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures by a tapered fluted and distaly fixed stem. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:751-756. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  20. Old AB, Mcgrory BJ. White RR, Babikian GM. Fixation of Vancouver type B1 and C fractures by broad metal plates without the application of struct allografts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;88:1425-1430. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  21. Parvizi J, Rapuri VR, Purtill JJ. Treatment protocol for proximal femoral periprosthetic fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(Suppl 2):8-16. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  22. Ricci WM, Bolhofner BR, Lofus T, Cox C, Mitchell S, Borrelli J jr. Indirect reduction and plate fixation without grafting for periprostetic femoral shaft fractures about a stable intramedullary implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2240-2245. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  23. Richards CJ, Duncan CP, Crawford R, W. Cement in cement femoral revision for the treatment of highly selected Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:335-337. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  24. Schwarzkopf R, Oni JK, Marwin SE. Total hip arthroplasty periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. 2013;71:68-78.
  25. Smižanský M, Lošták J, Gallo J. Využití kortikálních aloštěpů při rekonstrukci femuru u TEP kyčle. Ortopedie. 2014;8:81-86.
  26. Tsiridis E, Narvani AA, Timperley JA, Gie GA. Dynamic compression plates for Vancouver type B periprosthetical femoral fracures: a 3-year follow up of 18 cases. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:531-537. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  27. Wähnert D, Schröder R, Schulze M, Westerhoff P, Raschke M, Stange R. Biomechanical comparison of two angular stable plate constructions for periprosthetic femur fracture fixation. Int Orthop. 2014;38:47-53. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  28. Wang JQ, Gao YS, Mei J, Rao Z.T, Wang SQ. Revision hip arthroplasty as a treatmeat of Vancouver B3 periprostethic femoral fractures without bone rafting. Indian J Orthop. 2013;47:449-453. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  29. Young SW, Walker CG, Pitto RP. Functional outcomes of femoral periprosthetic fracture and revision hip artroplasty a matched-pair study from the New Zeeland Registry. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:483-488. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...
  30. Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M, Yang A. Locking compresion plate and cerclage band for type B1 periprosthetical femoral fractures preliminary results at average 30-months follow up. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:467-471. Přejít k původnímu zdroji... Přejít na PubMed...