PURPOSE: Femur fractures are among the most common fractures treated surgically, representing a significant challenge for the orthopedic surgeon. Peri-implant femoral fractures (PIFFs) represent a rare complication of the surgical treatment. It is necessary to pay attention during osteosynthesis, evaluating not only the fracture site but the entire femoral skeletal structure, the characteristics of the fracture, the health comorbidities, and the risk of malunion and pseudarthrosis. There are few studies on the incidence, treatment, and outcomes of PIFFs near osteosynthesis. This study aimed to investigate PIFF after osteosynthesis of femoral fractures and evaluate the mortality after surgery and the morbidity associated with these types of fractures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out at the IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy, between January, 2017 and December, 2022. Inclusion criteria were the presence of a femur fracture around an intramedullary nail to treat a previous fracture, follow-up ≥ 12 months, and patients aged ≥ 65 years. Exclusion criterion was intraoperative periprosthetic fractures. The data were expressed as frequency and percentage. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median and range. RESULTS: Overall, 25 patients were enrolled (88.0% female) and the mean age was 84.5 years (range of 70 - 92 years). There were 20 patients having type B PIFF and 5 having type C. In 22 patients, multiple comorbidities were found with an average Charlson comorbidity score of 5.5 and the mean time to peri-implant fracture was 38 months. After surgery, 1 patient (4.0%) presented renal failure, 1 (4.0%) needed removal surgery for their loosening, and 2 (8.0%) presented surgical site infection. Nine patients (36.0%) died within 1 year with a mortality rate of 20.0% at 30 days, 8.0% at 3 months, and 8.0% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS PIFFs in elderly patients are associated with high short-term mortality and morbidity, so careful planning for primary fracture surgery and patient awareness to ensure prolonged compliance and a healthy lifestyle are essential for prevention.
Humans ; Female ; Male ; Aged ; Femoral Fractures/mortality* ; Retrospective Studies ; Aged, 80 and over ; Periprosthetic Fractures/epidemiology* ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary/adverse effects* ; Postoperative Complications/mortality*

OBJECTIVE: To construct and evaluate nomogram prediction model for periprosthetic fractures in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: A total of 538 patients who underwent THA from April 2013 to February 2019 were selected as the research subjects, including 318 males and 220 females, aged 40 to 60 years old with an average age of (50.79±6.37) years old. All patients with THA were divided into non-fracture group (506 patients) and fracture group (32 pathents) according to the 3-year follow-up results. Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze the influencing factors of postoperative periprosthetic fractures in patients with THA. A nomogram prediction model for periprosthetic fractures in patients undergoing THA was constructed, and the validity and discrimination of the prediction model were evaluated. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with osteoporosis, trauma history, and hip revision in the fracture group were higher than those in the non-fracture group(P<0.05), and the proportion of bone cement prosthesis was lower than that in the non-fracture group(P<0.05). The osteoporosis status[OR=4.177, 95%CI(1.815, 9.617), P<0.05], trauma history[OR=7.481, 95%CI(3.104, 18.031), P<0.05], and hip revision[OR=11.371, 95%CI(3.220, 40.153, P<0.05] were independent risk factors for postoperative periprosthetic fractures in patients undergoing THA, cemented prosthesis [OR=0.067, 95%CI(0.019, 0.236), P<0.05] was an independent protective factor for postoperative periprosthetic fractures in patients undergoing THA(P<0.05). Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test showed that χ²=7.864, P=0.325;the area under the curve (AUC) for periprosthetic fractures in patients undergoing THA was 0.892 with a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 77.7% by receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve. CONCLUSION The nomogram prediction model for periprosthetic fractures after THA constructed in this study has good discrimination, which is beneficial to clinical prediction of periprosthetic fractures in patients undergoing THA, and facilitates individualized fracture prevention.
Male ; Female ; Humans ; Adult ; Middle Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects* ; Periprosthetic Fractures/surgery* ; Nomograms ; Reoperation/adverse effects* ; Risk Factors ; Osteoporosis/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies ; Hip Prosthesis

PURPOSE: Non-prosthetic peri-implant fractures are challenging injuries. Multiple factors must be carefully evaluated for an adequate therapeutic strategy, such as the state of bone healing, the type of implant, the time and performed personnel of previous surgery, and the stability of fixation. The aim of this study is to propose a rationale for the treatment. METHODS: The peri-implant femoral fractures (PIFFs) system, a therapeutic algorithm was developed for the management of all patients presenting a subtype A PIFF, based on the type of the original implant (extra- vs. intra-medullary), implant length and fracture location. The adequacy and reliability of the proposed algorithm and the fracture healing process were assessed at the last clinical follow-up using the Parker mobility score and radiological assessment, respectively. In addition, all complications were noticed. Continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation, or median and range according to their distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency and percentages. RESULTS: This is a retrospective case series of 33 PIFFs, and the mean post-operative Parker mobility score was (5.60 ± 2.54) points. Five patients (15.1%) achieved complete mobility without aids (9 points) and 1 (3.0%) patient was not able to walk. Two other patients (6.1%) were non-ambulatory prior to PPIF. The mean follow-up was (21.51 ± 9.12) months (range 6 - 48 months). There were 7 (21.2%) complications equally distributed between patients managed either with nailing or plating. There were no cases of nonunion or mechanical failure of the original implant. CONCLUSION The proposed treatment algorithm shows adequate, reliable and straightforward to assist the orthopaedic trauma surgeon on the difficult decision-making process regarding the management of PIFF occurring in previously healed fractures. In addition, it may become a useful tool to optimize the use of the classification, thus potentially improving the outcomes and minimizing complications.
Humans ; Periprosthetic Fractures/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies ; Femoral Fractures/surgery* ; Reproducibility of Results ; Fracture Fixation, Internal ; Fracture Healing ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare the clinical efficacy of different types of surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture(PFF) after hip arthroplasty (HA). METHODS: From September 2010 to September 2016, 47 patients (47 hips) with periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty were retrospectively analyzed, including 13 males and 34 females. According to Vancouver classification, there were 2 patients with type AG, 17 patients with type B1, 19 patients with type B2, 7 patients with type B3 and 2 patients with type C. The age of patients ranged from 56 to 94 (71.5±8.3) years. After admission, nutritional risk screening (NRS2002) was used to assess the nutritionalstatus of the patients. Eighteen patients (38%) had malnutrition risk (NRS>3 points). After admission, the patients were given corresponding surgical treatment according to different types. Intraoperative blood loss was recorded. Harris score was used to evaluate the hip function. VAS pain score was performed on admission and after operation. RESULTS: All the 47 patients were followed up for 19 to 62 (34±11) months. The Harris scores were (41.8±12.1) and (89.0±2.6) respectively before and 1 year after operation, and the difference was statistically significant ( CONCLUSION The treatment of hip periprosthetic fracture patients should be based on the general situation of patients, imaging data, intraoperative correction classification, etc. to develop individualized treatment plan in line with patients. For patients with preoperative malnutrition risk, preoperative nutritional intervention may reduce intraoperative bleeding.
Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects* ; Female ; Femoral Fractures/surgery* ; Fracture Fixation, Internal ; Hip Prosthesis ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Periprosthetic Fractures/surgery* ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effect of bridge combined internal fixation system in the treatment of periprosthesis fracture of femur after hip replacement. METHODS: From October 2016 to June 2018, 5 patients of periprosthesis fractures of femur classified type B1 and type C in Vancouver were treated by open reduction and bridging combined with internal fixation, including 2 males and 3 females, with ages of 68, 70, 74, 75, 79 years;type B1 fractures in 4 and type C fractures in 1. Causes of injury:1 case of traffic injury, 4 cases of fall. After the operation, the patients were followed up for complications and fracture healing time by clinical and imaging examination, and Parker activity score was performed. RESULTS: The wounds of 5 patients healed without infection. One case of DVT was confirmed by venography. Five patients were followed up, and the durations were 2, 8, 9, 10, 15 months. One patient died of myocardial infarction 2 months after operation. The average healing time was 12.5 weeks. No loss of reduction or failure of internal fixation was found. Two patients could walk without protection and 1 patient needed to rely on single crutch. One case of periprosthetic fracture had to walk with a single crutch before operation and move indoors with two crutches after operation. The average Parker activity score was 51.8% before operation. CONCLUSION The bridge combined internal fixation system can be used to fix the fracture after hip replacement with stable femoral prosthesis.
Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip ; Bone Plates ; Female ; Femoral Fractures ; surgery ; Fracture Fixation, Internal ; Fracture Healing ; Humans ; Male ; Periprosthetic Fractures ; surgery ; Radiography ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

Recently, as the elderly population increases, the incidence of total knee arthroplasty has increased, with a concomitant increase in the frequency of periprosthetic fractures. To determine the treatment plan for fractures, the treatment method should be determined by the patient's age, osteoporosis, fixation status of the implant, and type of fracture. In recent years, operative treatment with reduction and stable fixation, rather than non-operative treatment, was used to promote early joint movement and gait. On the other hand, it is necessary to select an appropriate operative method to reduce complications of surgery, such as nonunion and infection, and expect a good prognosis. In this review, periprosthetic fractures were divided into femur, tibia, and patella fractures, and their causes, risk factors, classification, and treatment are discussed.
Aged ; Arthroplasty ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee ; Classification ; Femur ; Gait ; Hand ; Humans ; Incidence ; Joints ; Knee ; Methods ; Osteoporosis ; Patella ; Periprosthetic Fractures ; Prognosis ; Risk Factors ; Tibia

Although the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty is expected to increase, these complex fractures are still challenging complications. To obtain optimal results for these fractures, thorough clinical and radiographic evaluation, precise classification, and understanding of modern management principles are mandatory. The Vancouver classification system is a simple, effective, and reproducible method for planning proper treatments of these injuries. The fractures associated with a stable femoral stem can be effectively treated with osteosynthesis, though periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with a loose stem require revision arthroplasty. We describe here the principles of proper treatment for the patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures as well as how to avoid complications.
Arthroplasty ; Classification ; Femoral Fractures ; Femur ; Hip ; Humans ; Incidence ; Methods ; Periprosthetic Fractures

OBJECTIVE: To study clinical effects of double plating through different approaches for communicated and obvious osteoporosis periprosthetic femoral fracture following total knee arthroplasty(TKA). METHODS: From July 2010 to June 2017, 21 patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture following TKA were divided into two groups according to operative approach. Fifteen patients in medial and lateral double approaches group, including 5 males and 10 females aged from 63 to 79 years old with an average of (67.2±5.9) years old; 11 patients were type 33-A2 and 4 patients were type 33-A3 according to AO-OTA classification; 12 patients injured by falling down and 3 patients by traffic accident; treated with double plating. Six patients in medial parapatellar approach group, including 3 males and 3 females, aged from 61 to 74 years old with an average of (64.6±6.0) years old; 3 patients were type 33-A2 and 3 patients were type 33-A3 according to AO-OTA classification; 5 patients injured by falling down and 1 patient by traffic accident; treated with double plating. Operative time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, fracture healing time were compared between two groups; HSS score and radiology at 3 and 12 months were compared between two groups. RESULTS: All patients were followed up, and the follow-up time of bilateral approaches group ranged from 12 to 18 months with an average of (14.2±2.6 ) months, while the follow-up time of single approach group ranged from 12 to 16 months with an average of (12.6±2.5) months, and there was no statistical difference between two groups. The operative time and postoperative drainage in bilateral approaches group were (107.2±10.4) min and (213.9±30.4) ml, while in sigle approach group was (95.4±12.8) min and (256.8±34.2) ml, and the differences were significant(<0.05). There were no significant difference in blood loss and fracture healing time(>0.05). HHS score at 3 and 12 months after operation in bilateral approach were 82.9±5.7 and 84.8±7.1, while in single approach group were 83.6±6.1 and 86.3±6.8; there was no statistical difference in HSS score between two groups(>0.05). According to HSS score at 12 months after operation, 2 cases got excellent results and 13 good in bilateral approaches group; 1 case got excellent result and 4 good and 1 moderate in single approach group; but there was no statistical difference between two groups (χ²=2.625, =0.105). There wase no significant differences in complications between bilateral approaches group(2 cases) and single approach group (1 case)(>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Double plating technique for communicated and obvious osteoporosis periprosthetic femoral fracture following TKA could obtain good function of knee joint. The medial parapatellar approach has shorter operative time, while the bilateral approaches had less drainage.
Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee ; Female ; Femoral Fractures ; surgery ; Fracture Fixation, Internal ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Periprosthetic Fractures ; surgery ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVE: To explore risk factors of the periprosthetic fracture after hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Potential studies were searched in databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI as well as Wanfang Database up to November 2018 and references in related literatures. The methodological quality of literature was estimated by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Raw data were merged and tested mainly by Revmain 5.3. RESULTS: Seventeen studies in total were appropriate with 90 632 patients. The results revealed that it increased the risk of periprosthetic fracture after hip arthroplasty, including female (=1.62, 95%CI:1.44 to 1.82, <0.01), revision(=3.78, 95%CI:1.88 to 7.58, <0.01), preoperative diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis(=1.60, 95%CI:1.07 to 2.37, =0.02). Conversely, patients involved with cemented prosthesis fixation(=0.43, 95%CI:0.27 to 0.68, <0.01) were less likely to suffer periprosthetic fracture after hip arthroplasty. Other factors were not significantly relevant to periprosthetic fracture after hip arthroplasty, including the age, preoperative diagnosis(femoral head necrosis, osteoarthritis, developmental dysplasia of the hip, femoral fracture, concomitant heart diseases) and American Society of Anesthesiologists >=3. CONCLUSIONS Orthopedics doctors should constantly be cantious about the risk factors including female, revision and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. They are supposed to prevent the periprosthetic fracture by gentle operation during hip arthroplasty and monitoring the functional exercise after operations when the above risk factors occur.
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip ; Female ; Femoral Fractures ; Humans ; Periprosthetic Fractures ; Reoperation ; Risk Factors

PURPOSE: The difficulty of femoral preparation with supine-position hip hemi-arthroplasty (HA) often leads to intra-operative fractures (IOFs). We aimed to clarify the incidence and types of IOFs in HA for hip fractures performed in the supine and lateral positions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively investigated cases of HA for acute femoral neck fractures from June 2013 to May 2018. We examined the incidence and types of IOFs according to different approaches. We defined supine-position in HA as the supine and hip-hyperextended (over-range) femoral preparation position, and lateral position as the lateral and hip-flexed femoral preparation position. We used a short tapered wedged stem. RESULTS: Supine-position HA was used in 46 patients (23.7%) and lateral-position HA in 148 patients (76.3%). IOFs in supine-position HA occurred in 8 patients (17.4%) and included five Vancouver AGT and three Vancouver B2 fractures. IOFs in lateral-position HA occurred in 3 patients (2.0%) and included one Vancouver AGT and two Vancouver B fractures. Supine-position HA was a risk factor for IOFs (adjusted odds ratio, 9.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.37–39.8; P < 0.01) CONCLUSION: Supine-position in HA is an IOF risk factor and significantly increases the incidence of great trochanter fractures of Vancouver type A.
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip ; Femoral Neck Fractures ; Femur ; Hemiarthroplasty ; Hip Fractures ; Hip ; Humans ; Incidence ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Odds Ratio ; Periprosthetic Fractures ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors