Sauri-Arce JCA, Azcona-Cervera R

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 77-81
PDF size: 153.07 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The incidence rate of periprosthetic fractures has increased in the past decade. Osteolysis, age and preoperative function are factors that influence morbidity. Treatment options include conservative and surgical treatment. Objectives: To conduct a study analyzing the functional results of the surgical treatment of periprosthetic hip fractures at the ABC Medical Center considering preoperative and postoperative variables. Material and methods: Cross-sectional retrospective study of patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic hip fracture between January 2000 and December 2011, classified using the Vancouver system. The Oxford Hip Score was used pre- and postoperatively as a functional measure. The variables to evaluate included age, sex, surgical technique, and the time elapsed between primary surgery and the periprosthetic fracture. Results: Twenty-five patients were analyzed; frequency was 3.3 cases per year. 80% of periprosthetic fractures were postoperative; 72% were total hip arthroplasties. The time elapsed between primary surgery and the traumatic event was 2 to 4 years (68%), with a mean of 4.5 years for hemiarthroplasties and 3.9 years for total arthroplasties. Patients who according to the Oxford Hip Score had good function maintained their results; 75% of those with moderate function maintained their score. Patients with poor function improved. Conclusions: At the ABC Medical Center, the outcomes of the treatment of periprosthetic hip fractures are considered as good according to the Oxford Hip Score.

REFERENCES

1. Berry DJ, et al: Epidemiology of periprosthetic fractures after mayor joint replacement: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999; 30: 183-90.

2. Meek, et al: The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2011; 93-B: 96-101.

3. Lindhalm, et al: Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1,049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20: 857-65.

4. Lakstein D, et al: Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 2011; 93: 57-65.

5. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Callaghan JJ, Kim YS, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD, et al: Acetabular fracture associated with cementeless acetabular component insertion: a report of 13 cases. J Arthroplasty. 1999; 14: 426-31.

6. Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP: Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop. 2004; 420: 80-95.

7. Jun-Wen Wang: Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after hip arthroplasty: the clinical outcome using cortical strut allografts. J Orthopaedic Surg. 2000; 8(1): 27-31.

8. Van Houwelingen, et al: Infection associated with cortical allograft strut fixation of a periprosthetic femoral shaft fracture: a case report and review of the literature. J Trauma. 2008; 64: 1630-4.

9. Springer BD, et al: Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 2156-62.

10. Leradmond ID: The management of the periprosthetic fractures around the stem. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2004; 86-B: 13-9.

11. Bethea JS, DeAndrade JR, Fleming LL, Lindenbaum SE, Welch RD: Proximal femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1999; 81-A: 1073-9.

12. Beals RK, Tower SS: Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop. 1996; 327: 238-46.

13. Taylor MM, Meyers MH, Harvey JP: Intraoperative femur fracture during total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 1978; 137: 96-103.