Management Of Periprosthetic Fractures Research Articles

Management of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a comprehensive review

Management of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a comprehensive review

Fixation or Revision for Periprosthetic Fractures: Epidemiology, New Trends, and Projections in the United States.

Periprosthetic fractures can be devastating complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The management of periprosthetic fractures is complex, spanning expertise in arthroplasty and trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine and project trends in the operative treatment of periprosthetic fractures in the United States. A large, public and private payer database was queried to capture all International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes for periprosthetic femoral and tibial fractures. Statistical models were created to assess trends in treatment for periprosthetic fractures and to predict future surgical rates. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to assess significance. A Bonferroni correction was applied where applicable to account for multiple comparisons. In this study, from 2016 to 2021, 121,298 patients underwent surgical treatment for periprosthetic fractures. There was a significant increase in the total number of periprosthetic fractures. The incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures rose by 38% and that for periprosthetic knee fractures rose by 73%. The number of periprosthetic fractures is predicted to rise 212% from 2016 to 2032. There was a relative increase in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) compared with revision arthroplasty for both periprosthetic hip fractures and periprosthetic knee fractures. Periprosthetic fractures are anticipated to impose a substantial health-care burden in the coming decades. Periprosthetic knee fractures are predominantly treated with ORIF rather than revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), whereas periprosthetic hip fractures are predominantly treated with revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) rather than ORIF. Both periprosthetic knee fractures and periprosthetic hip fractures demonstrated increasing trends in this study. The proportion of periprosthetic hip fractures treated with ORIF relative to revision THA has been increasing. Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OUTCOMES FOLLOWING A TOTAL FEMORAL PLATING TECHNIQUE FOR MANAGEMENT OF PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES AROUND STABLE HIP AND KNEE IMPLANTS

IntroductionManagement of Vancouver type B1 and C periprosthetic fractures in elderly patients requires fixation and an aim for early mobilisation but many techniques restrict weightbearing due to re-fracture risk. We present the clinical and radiographic outcomes of our technique of total femoral plating (TFP) to allow early weightbearing whilst reducing risk of re-fracture.MethodsA single-centre retrospective cohort study was performed including twenty-two patients treated with TFP for fracture around either hip or knee replacements between May 2014 and December 2017. Follow-up data was compared at 6, 12 and 24 months.Primary outcomes were functional scores (Oxford Hip or Knee score (OHS/OKS)), Quality of Life (EQ-5D) and satisfaction at final follow-up (Visual Analogue Score (VAS)). Secondary outcomes were radiographic fracture union and complications.ResultsMean OHS and OKS was 50.25, EQ-5D score was >4 for all modalities, VAS was 64.4/100. Radiographs demonstrated bony union in 58% at 3 months and 76% at 6 months. We identified no case of re-fracture however non-union occurred in 4 patients. No other operative complications were identified.ConclusionThese results suggest that TFP may be a safe, viable option for management of periprosthetic fractures around stable implants allowing the benefit of early weightbearing, satisfactory outcomes and low re-fracture risk.

Optimizing periprosthetic fracture management and in-hospital outcome: insights from the PIPPAS multicentric study of 1387 cases in Spain

BackgroundThe incidence of all periprosthetic fractures (PPF), which require complex surgical treatment associated with high morbidity and mortality, is predicted to increase. The evolving surgical management has created a knowledge gap regarding its impact on immediate outcomes. This study aimed to describe current management strategies for PPF and their repercussions for in-hospital outcomes as well as to evaluate their implications for the community.MethodsPIPPAS (Peri-Implant PeriProsthetic Survival Analysis) was a prospective multicentre observational study of 1387 PPF performed during 2021. Descriptive statistics summarized the epidemiology, fracture characteristics, management, and immediate outcomes. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was employed to evaluate potential predictors of in-hospital mortality, complications, discharge status, and weight-bearing restrictions.ResultsThe study encompassed 32 (2.3%) shoulder, 4 (0.3%) elbow, 751 (54.1%) hip, 590 (42.5%) knee, and 10 (0.7%) ankle PPF. Patients were older (median 84 years, IQR 77–89), frail [median clinical frailty scale (CFS) 5, IQR 3–6], presented at least one comorbidity [median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) 5, IQR 4–7], were community dwelling (81.8%), and had outdoor ambulation ability (65.6%). Femoral knee PPF were most frequently associated with uncemented femoral components, while femoral hip PPF occurred equally in cemented and uncemented stems. Patients were managed surgically (82%), with co-management (73.9%), through open approaches (85.9%) after almost 4 days (IQR, 51.9–153.6 h), with prosthesis revision performed in 33.8% of femoral hip PPF and 6.5% of femoral knee PPF. For half of the patients, the discharge instructions mandated weight-bearing restrictions. In-hospital mortality rates were 5.2% for all PPF and 6.2% for femoral hip PPF. Frailty, age > 84 years, mild cognitive impairment, CFS > 3, CCI > 3, and non-geriatric involvement were candidate predictors for in-hospital mortality, medical complications, and discharge to a nursing care facility. Management involving revision arthroplasty by experienced surgeons favoured full weight-bearing, while an open surgical approach favoured weight-bearing restrictions.ConclusionsCurrent arthroplasty fixation check and revision rates deviate from established guidelines, yet full weight-bearing is favoured. A surgical delay of over 100 h and a lack of geriatric co-management were related to in-hospital mortality and medical complications. This study recommends judicious hypoaggressive approaches. Addressing complications and individualizing the surgical strategy can lead to enhanced functional outcomes, alleviating the economic and social burdens upon hospital discharge.Level of Evidence Level IV case series.Trial registration: registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04663893), protocol ID: PI 20-2041.Graphical abstract

The Treatment of Periprosthetic Fracture Revision of the Humerus with “Bamboo Support” Structural Allograft Technique—Atrophic Non-Union of a Post-Operative Periprosthetic Fracture after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Case Report

Periprosthetic fractures are a serious complication of joint replacement surgery. With the growing prevalence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), the incidence of relatively uncommon periprosthetic humeral fractures has increased. Here, we present the unique case of a 74-year-old woman who developed atrophic non-union after plate osteosynthesis for a periprosthetic fracture associated with RTSA. Fixation failure was evident 3 months after the surgical intervention; the patient underwent a 3-month course of arm sling immobilization. However, bone resorption continued, and varus angulation of the fracture developed. In this case, surgical strategy involved the use of long proximal humerus internal locked system plate (DePuy Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA), augmented with autologous iliac bone graft and allogenic humerus structural bone graft with the “bamboo support technique”, fixed with Cable System (DePuy Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA). No reports have addressed the management of failed periprosthetic fractures using allogeneic humeral strut bone grafts. This report aims to fill the gap by presenting a novel surgical technique for the management of periprosthetic fractures associated with RTSA in case of treatment failure.

Locking Attachment Plate for the Surgical Treatment of Periprosthetic and Periimplant Fractures: Long-Term Follow-Up.

The surgical management of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) and periimplant fractures (PIF) can be challenging. The locking attachment plate (LAP) was proposed in recent years for the osteosynthesis of such fractures. The aim of this study was to assess the experience of a third-level hospital with LAP for the treatment of PPF and PIF, and analyse the clinical outcomes. Data were prospectively collected and analysed from all patients whose PPF/PIF was treated surgically with LAP in a third-level hospital from June 2018 to June 2022. All fractures were postoperative low-energy femur fractures. The minimum follow-up period was six months. Thirty-eight patients (31 women) met the eligibility criteria. The mean age was 86.3 years. The median time until surgery was 4 days. A mean of 3.61 screws were used for each LAP. The mean femur plate length was 14 holes, and the mean working length 7.1 holes. The median hospital stay was nine days. The mean follow-up was 19.56 months. At one month, 12 patients tolerated partial weight-bearing. Five patients walked independently indoors. One patient had died and seven patients were readmitted. At six months, six more patients had died. Fifteen patients tolerated full weight-bearing (FWB). Nine patients walked independently indoors, six outdoors. Twenty-five patients reached fracture consolidation without malalignment. Nine patients were readmitted. At 12 months, another patient had died. Seventeen patients tolerated FWB. Eleven patients walked independently indoors, six outdoors. Twenty-five patients achieved fracture consolidation without malalignment. Five patients were readmitted. Fourteen patients crossed the two-year postoperative threshold. All achieved fracture consolidation. Two patients passed the 4-year postoperative milestone. The clinical results of patients whose PPF or PIF was treated with the LAP are promising. This fixation method is a viable option to be considered when planning surgery for such fractures.

Revision of Motec Total Wrist Replacement in the Second Metacarpal.

Wrist arthroplasty is becoming more commonplace, with various implant choices available. The Motec (Swemac Orthopaedics AB, Linköping, Sweden) cementless ball-and-socket system is being increasingly utilised and is designed for the distal component to be implanted into the third metacarpal. However, distal component failure is a recognised complication. We outline our experience with the revision of this component into the second metacarpal. This technical note is presented through our experience of two patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for the management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the third metacarpal. This technique has demonstrated a safe and viable solution to this complication, achieving good anatomical centre of rotation, function, range of movement and patient satisfaction. Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic).

Periprosthetic fracture management: global approaches

Abstract The incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) continues to increase worldwide. The goal of management is to restore mobility early while minimizing potential treatment complications. The general medical frailty of patients sustaining PPFs complicates the management of these conditions, with many of those affected being highly susceptible to the consequences of impaired mobilization. Outcomes depend on patient-related (eg, age, physiological condition, medical comorbidities, quality of bone, presence of osteolysis, previous procedures, sex) and surgeon-related (eg, diagnosis, choice of procedure, selected implant, and surgical technique) factors, and preventative measures to decrease the risk of PPFs should be pursued whenever possible. The articles in this supplement address the treatment of the most commonly encountered PPFs, specifically those in the proximal humerus, acetabulum, proximal femur, distal femur, and proximal tibia. This work represents a collaborative effort of the member societies of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association, an international association of orthopaedic organizations dedicated to the promotion of musculoskeletal trauma care through advancements in patient care, research, and education. The expectation is that the information provided in this supplement will improve the care of patients with PPFs.

Periprosthetic fracture management of the proximal femur

The most common periprosthetic fractures occur around the hip. The most widely used classification is the Vancouver classification, and management requires careful planning and skill in both arthroplasty and fracture surgery. This article presents an overview of the diagnosis, classification, and management of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur. This work represents a summary review from Latin American Society Members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association.

How resources affect management of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur: perspectives from Israel, South Sudan, and South Africa

Periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur have significant morbidity in both total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA, respectively). The incidence of these fractures is growing, with the predominant mechanism of injury being a fall from a standing height and therefore considered fragility fractures. In many countries, improved public funding and a flourishing private health care sector, when coupled with increased life expectancy, translates to more older patients receiving both TKA and THA and therefore an increased prevalence of periprosthetic fractures and their associated complications. These fractures may occur below a long stem THA, above a TKA, or between the two (so-called "interprosthetic fracture"). We will outline fracture classification, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment options, highlighting perspectives on treating these fractures in Israel, South Africa, and South Sudan. These countries represent differing access to resources, varied comorbidity factors, and differing health care systems. The points of difference and the points of similarity will be considered.

Apparent trends in the use of femoral megaprostheses: an analysis from the National Joint Registry

BackgroundMegaprosthetic replacement (MPR) of the femur is typically reserved for salvage or oncological reconstruction. Presently little is known about the provision of femoral MPRs performed nationally, the trends in indications for their use, and their outcomes beyond published unit-level data. Although the National Joint Registry (NJR) collects data as part of a mandatory arthroplasty audit process, MPR data entry on this platform is thought to be inconsistent. The aim of this study is to determine current trends for femoral MPR procedures as submitted to the NJR.MethodsData for all procedures submitted to the NJR using the following implants were extracted: METS (Stanmore/Stryker), MUTARS (Implantcast), Segmental (Zimmer), GMRS (Stryker) and MEGA C (LINK). Pseudoanonymized data were analyzed through the NJR’s research Data Access Portal and are reported using descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 1781 procedures were identified. Submitted cases increased for primary and revision hip and knee categories over the study period, although they plateaued in recent years. MPR implants were most commonly used in revision hip arthroplasty procedures. MPR use for the management of peri-prosthetic fractures has increased and now represents the most commonly reported indication for MPR use in both hip and knee revision categories. Few centers submitted large MPR case volumes (which were noted to be lower than published unit case series, indicating NJR under-reporting), and the vast majority of centers submitting MPR cases did so in low volume.ConclusionsDue to the limitations identified, reported case volumes must be interpreted with caution. An MPR-specific NJR data entry form has been developed to allow more accurate and tailored reporting of MPR procedures, to support specialist service provision, and to provide meaningful data for future research.

A Quality Improvement Project to Improve Periprosthetic Fracture Management at District General Hospitals.

Introduction The incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) is expected to rise by 4.6% every decade over the next 30 years. The risk of mortality for patients who sustained a PPF was found to be similar to the mortality rate after a native hip fracture, and so The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines advocate the timely management and mobilisation for patients with PPFs. Patient outcomes following these complex surgeries can be highly variable owing to the variability in regional practice and service delivery. This study aimed to review the management trend and outcomes of periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) involving hip and knee prostheses at a busy district general hospital in order to improve the overall efficacy in managing these complex fractures. Methods This retrospective study included 67 patients who presented to a single district general hospital during a two-year period. Data was collected on demographic profile, further onward referral to a tertiary centre, management (operative versus conservative), timing of surgery, complications, length of stay, implant survivorship, 30-day, one-year, and two-year mortality rate. Results Out of the total of 67 PPFs, 51 (76%) were managed operatively, and 16 (24%) were managed conservatively. Of the operatively managed PPFs, 49 (96%) were managed locally at the district general hospital, and two (4%) were managed at the tertiary centre. Eighteen patients (37%) underwent both revision and fixation, whilst 31 (63%) underwent fixation alone. The mortality rates at 30 days, one year, and two years were 10.4%, 20.9%, and 25.4%, respectively. For PPF patients managed operatively, the mean time taken from presentation to operation was 89.2 hours. The overall mean length of hospital stay for all patients was 23.6 days. Eight patients suffered complications. The implant survivorship at two years was 98%. Conclusion This study adds objective support for the successful operative management of PPFs at district general hospitals. However, improvement is required in service delivery and the efficacy of management. This could be achieved by a national database for PPFs, improved resource allocation, and prompt logistical support.

Management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus : a systematic review.

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and to assess the uniformity of the classifications used for these fractures (including those around elbow and/or shoulder arthroplasties) by performing a systematic review of the literature. A systematic search was conducted using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Healthcare Databases Advance Search. For inclusion, studies had to report clinical outcomes following the management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database. Overall, 40 studies were included, involving a total of 210 patients. The fractures were reported using very heterogeneous classification systems, as were the functional outcome scores. A total of 60 patients had nonoperative treatment with a 50% rate of nonunion. Fixation was undertaken in 99 patients; successful union was obtained in 93 (93%). Revision of either the humeral stem or the whole arthroplasty was reported in 79 patients with a high rate of union (n = 66; 84%), and a mean rate of complications of 29% (0% to 41%). This study highlighted a lack of uniformity in classifying these fractures and reporting the outcome of their treatment. The results may help to inform decision-making with patients, particularly about the rate of complications of nonoperative treatment. There is a need to improve the reporting of the pattern of these fractures using a uniform classification system, and the harmonization of the collection of data relating to the outcome of treatment. Based on this review, we propose a minimum dataset to be used in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J2022;104-B(4):416-423.

Distal Femoral Replacement and Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Non-Oncological Reconstruction: A Retrospective Analysis.

Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is commonly used to manage massive bone loss around the knee arising from aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and distal femoral fractures. A number of studies report the outcome of DFR with considerable variation in long-term survivorship. This study investigated the outcome of DFR for patients with aseptic failures, fractures, and PJI. A retrospective review of 182 patients who underwent DFR for non-oncological indications between 2002 and 2018 was conducted. Data collected included the following: indication, postoperative complications, reoperation, revision, and follow-up. Implant survivorship with Kaplan-Meier curves along with a log-rank test for different preoperative indications was performed. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the risk of revision. The overall postoperative complication rate was very high at 36%. The most common complication was PJI (17%). The rate of reoperation for any cause was 29.7%, and the revision rate was 13.7%. The most common cause of re-revision was PJI (7.1%). Revision-free survivorship of the DFR implant was 91.6% at 1 year, 87.9% at 2 years, 82.5% at 5 years, and 73.4% at 10 years. Patients who had a prior-PJI had the lowest survivorship compared to patients undergoing DFR for management of periprosthetic fracture and mechanical loosening. Additionally, the prior-PJI group was at a fourfold increased risk of postoperative PJI compared to the aseptic group. DFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive bone loss around the knee. However, patients undergoing DFR are at high risk of complications, reoperations, and failure.

Study protocol for a national retrospective review of femoral periprosthetic fracture management. Is there variation in practice?

Abstract Introduction The incidence of femoral periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) in the UK is on the rise. This rising incidence presents a clinical and an economic burden on the national health care services. There is also uncertainty about the most effective treatment modality for femoral PPFs, as well as a lack of evidence for a standardized management approach. We aimed to identify the true incidence and any variation in the management of femoral PPFs nationally. Methods and analysis This multicentre national collaborative study has been designed by a trainee led research network in collaboration with a well-established university research organization. Data will be collected from participating centres over a period of 10 years (2010–2019). All adults presenting with a femoral PPF will be identified, and the mode of treatment for each fracture subtype will be recorded. Other measures will evaluate patient and treatment variables, objective and subjective outcome measures. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses will be used, as well as the coefficient of determination (R) in an attempt to measure the degree to which the models could explain the variation in management. Ethics and dissemination This multicentre national project was approved by the local clinical governance department at each participating hospital site. The results of this study will be submitted to international peer reviewed journals and appropriate national and international conferences.

Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Retrospective Study of 24 Cases

Periprosthetic fractures are classically considered rare. Their incidence is constantly increasing due to the aging of the population and the large number of prostheses put in place. The management of this pathology is not always easy. The therapeutic strategy should integrate the patient's condition, his functional expectation and the integrity of the sealing of the implant and the neighboring bone stock. The main objective is to restore limb and joint function by ensuring bone consolidation and implant stability. In this work, we report the results of a retrospective study of 24 cases of periprosthetic fractures of the femur following prostheses (intermediate and total) of the hip and knee with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The Vancouver classification was used to guide the therapeutic choice and the functional results were very satisfactory. The objective of this study is to take stock of the treatment and management of periprosthetic fractures of the femur.

Management of Modular Mega-Implant Infection of the Lower Extremity.

Revision arthroplasty involving mega-implants is associated with a high complication rate. In particular, infection is a serious complication of revision arthroplasty of hip and knee joints and has been reported to have an average rate of 18%, and for mega-implants, the range is from 3 to 36%. This study was designed to analyze the strategy of treatment of infection of mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities in our patient cohort, particularly the management of chronic infection. This was a retrospective study that focused on the results of the treatment of periprosthetic infections of mega-implants of the lower extremities. We identified 26 cases with periprosthetic infections out of 212 patients with 220 modular mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities who were treated in our department between September 2013 and September 2019. As a reinfection or recurrence, we defined clinical and microbiological recurrences of local periprosthetic joint infections after an antibiotic-free period. In this study, 200 cases out of 220 were investigated. The average follow-up period was approximately 18 months (6 months to 6 years). Endoprosthesis infections after implantation of mega-implants occurred in 26 cases (13%). This group comprised 2 early infections (within the first 4 weeks) and 24 chronic infections (between 10 weeks and 6 years after implantation). Nineteen cases out of the identified 26 cases with infection (73.1%) belong to the group of patients who were operated on due to major bone loss following explantation of endoprosthetic components due to previous periprosthetic joint infection. The remaining seven cases with infection comprised four cases following management of periprosthetic fracture, two cases following treatment of aseptic loosening, and one case following tumor resection. All infections were treated surgically. In all cases, the duration of continuous antibiotic treatment did not exceed 6 weeks. Both cases with early infection were treated by exchanging polyethylene inlays and performing debridement with lavage (two cases). In two (7.7%) cases with chronic infection, one-stage surgery was performed. In all remaining cases with chronic infection (22 cases; 84.6%), explantation of all components and temporary implantation of cement spacers were carried out prior to reimplantation. There is still no gold standard therapeutic regimen for the management of periprosthetic infection of mega-implants, though radical surgical debridement and lavage accompanied by systemic antibiotic therapy are the most important therapeutic tools in all cases of periprosthetic infections, regardless of the time of onset. Further studies are needed to standardize management strategies of such infections. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for compromises to be made based on the particular condition of the individual.

Financial Impact of Inaccurate Coding Plus Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Surgically Managed Patients With Periprosthetic Fractures.

BackgroundAn upward trend is seen in a number of periprosthetic fractures. Their management often requires complex surgical intervention, expert skills and expensive equipment. Hospitals get paid according to Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) tariffs. HRG gets generated once diagnoses, Charlson comorbidity (CC) index score, surgical procedures, investigations and length of stay have been coded for. Coding departments consist of non-clinicians. Although auditing systems are in and made of internal and external auditors, we hypothesized that multiple errors can still occur which may result in significant financial losses.ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of coding for management of periprosthetic fractures. To identify causes for inaccurate coding and assess the financial impact of highly complex trauma in a district general hospital (DGH).MethodsRetrospective comparative analysis of case notes for patients with an M966 diagnosis code (periprosthetic fracture) between 1st November 2017 and 1st November 2018. All cases were analysed and data for primary procedure, primary diagnosis, secondary procedures and secondary diagnosis, comorbidities and length of stay were extrapolated and re-coded using the same software in use by the coding team. Costs incurred for each surgically managed patient were calculated using a rough estimate of cost of each procedure. Finally, cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by comparing our calculated figures to the actual final claim by our institution. ResultsTwenty-nine patients with the diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture were identified by the coding team using M966 code. A further case was identified by reviewing operating software (Operating Room Management Information System [ORMIS®]). In four cases (13.3 %), the primary diagnosis was coded incorrectly by the coding team. Overall coders accuracy for surgically managed patients (n=21) was 52% (n=11). This resulted in an estimated incurred loss of £25,000. Wrong/omitted site of surgery was found to be the most influential coder error with up to £8000 loss in one case (P<0.05). Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated the stark differences in costs for HRG tariffs when used in trauma setting vs non-trauma setting. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was associated with less financial loss to our trust with closer procedural costs to HRG tariff (average cost of £9200 for ORIF vs £22,030 for a massive endoprosthesis).ConclusionsSurgeons should carefully review codes for such complex procedures before or soon after surgery. Wrong/omitted site of surgery is the key cause for losses in our cohort, followed by inadequate recording of comorbidities. Coders can only code for what is documented. Following cost-effectiveness analysis our study highlights the need for HRG tariffs to be revised for such procedures. The cost of ORIF vs massive endoprosthesis should be noted, signifying the implant costs when such specialised revision surgery performed over less expensive ORIF surgery.

Periprosthetic fracture management around total knee arthroplasty

Periprosthetic fracture management around total knee arthroplasty

A study of periprosthetic fractures following hemi-arthroplasty of hip in elderly population: diagnosis and management

&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background:&lt;/strong&gt; Hemi-arthroplasty of hip for intracapsular fractures of femoral neck is one of the most commonly done surgical procedures in the low mobility older Indian population. Although there are numerous complications associated with the procedure, we want to study the types and management of peri-prosthetic fractures in patients treated with hip hemi-arthroplasty.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods:&lt;/strong&gt; A total of 26 patients were included in the study. A retrospective analysis of the radiological cum clinical diagnosis and management of peri-prosthetic fractures was performed. All patients were followed up till 1.5 years post-operatively.&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results:&lt;/strong&gt; According to Vancouver classification of peri-prosthetic fractures, 10 fractures were classified as type A, 7 as type B1, 3 as type B2, 4 as type B3 and 2 as type C. Fractures were managed either by Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) or Revision hemi-arthroplasty. Fractures type AG, B1 and C were managed with ORIF and type B2 and B3 fractures were managed with revision hemi-arthroplasty using longer stem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/strong&gt; As evident in our study, majority of fractures occurred intra-operatively, a thorough evaluation of pre-operative x-rays of both hips should be done along with special focus on anatomical variations. Correct diagnosis based on radiological and intraoperative findings followed by appropriate treatment are of paramount importance in the management of peri-prosthetic fractures.&lt;/p&gt;