Proximale periprothetische Femurfrakturen: Klassifikation und Therapie

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Bei periprothetischen Frakturen am Femur muss unterschieden werden zwischen proximalen Frakturen, die rund um die Hüft-TEP liegen, und distalen Frakturen, die das Kniegelenk betreffen. In dieser Arbeit werden die proximalen Femurfrakturen behandelt. Es ist wichtig, bereits präoperativ eine Klassifikation der Fraktur durchzuführen, um die entsprechende präoperative Planung möglichst genau umsetzen zu können. Bereits im Vorfeld sollte abgeklärt werden, ob ein Prothesenwechsel erforderlich ist, d. h. ob die Prothese locker ist oder nicht, oder ob eine offene Reposition und innere Fixierung möglich ist. Abhängig vom geplanten Vorgehen müssen die entsprechenden Implantate bereitstehen, um nicht intraoperativ an eine Versorgungsgrenze zu kommen. Insgesamt ist von einer Inzidenzsteigerung periprothetischer Frakturen auszugehen, da es einerseits aufgrund des steigenden Lebensalters und der damit verbundenen Risikofaktoren zu einer Zunahme kommen wird, andererseits auch durch die steigende Anzahl der Primärendoprothetik. Die Versorgung von periprothetischen Frakturen stellt eine große Herausforderung aus wirtschaftlicher, aber auch operativer Sicht dar. Sie benötigt große Erfahrung und sollte daher spezialisierten Abteilungen mit interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit vorbehalten sein.

Abstract

Periprosthetic femoral fractures can be categorized into proximal fractures around a hip stem or distally around a knee arthroplasty. This paper focuses on the proximal periprosthetic fractures. It is important to classify the fracture at diagnosis and to perform accurate planning of the surgery. Basically it is necessary to decide if the implant is fixed or loose, in the latter case a revision surgery including the change of the endoprosthesis is neccessary. If the implant is fixed an open reduction and internal fixation can be done. All implants have to be available on site because in the course of the intervention the plan could change. Due to rising numbers of primary arthroplasties and more elderly patients an increase of periprosthetic fractures can be expected. The treatment of periprosthetic fractures is an economic and surgical challenge. It is important to provide competence for these cases concerning both operative techniques and interdisciplinary treatment.

• Literatur

• 1 Kim Y, Tanaka C, Tada H et al. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures after femoral revision using a long stem. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16: 113-119
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Schwarzkopf R, Oni JK, Marwin SE. Total hip arthroplasty periprosthetic femoral fractures: a review of classification and current treatment. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2013; 71: 68-78
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect 1998; 47: 243-249
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Lindahl H, Malchau H, Odén A et al. Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 26-30
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Berry DJ. Periprosthetic fractures associated with osteolysis: a problem on the rise. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (03) Suppl. 1 S107-S111
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Fredin HO, Lindberg H, Carlsson AS. Femoral fracture following hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 1987; 58: 20-22
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia B et al. Incidence and future projections on periprosthetic femoral fracture following primary hip arthroplasty: an analysis of international registry data. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2015; 25: 269-275
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Lindahl H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 2007; 38: 651-654
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Zuurmond RG, van Wijhe W, van Raay JJ et al. High incidence of complications and poor clinical outcome in the operative treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: an analysis of 71 cases. Injury 2010; 41: 629-633
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 469: 80-95
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 1995; 44: 293-304
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Whittaker RP, Sotos LN, Ralston EL. Fractures of the femur about femoral endoprostheses. J Trauma 1974; 14: 675-694
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Johansson JE, McBroom R, Barrington TW et al. Fracture of the ipsilateral femur in patients wih total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63: 1435-1442
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Mont MA, Maar DC. Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty. A statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 511-519
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Duncan CP, Haddad FS. The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 713-716
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Mukundan C, Rayan F, Kheir E et al. Management of late periprosthetic femur fractures: a retrospective cohort of 72 patients. Int Orthop 2010; 34: 485-489
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Lunebourg A, Mouhsine E, Cherix S et al. Treatment of type B periprosthetic femur fractures with curved non-locking plate with eccentric holes: Retrospective study of 43 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101: 277-282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Holder N, Papp S, Gofton W et al. Outcomes following surgical treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures: a single centre series. Can J Surg 2014; 57: 209-213
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Holley K, Zelken J, Padgett D et al. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 99 patients. HSS J 2007; 3: 190-197
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Wimmer MD, Randau TM, Deml MC et al. Impaction grafting in the femur in cementless modular revision total hip arthroplasty: a descriptive outcome analysis of 243 cases with the MRP-TITAN revision implant. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 19
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Streubel PN, Ricci WM, Wong A et al. Mortality after distal femur fractures in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 1188-1196
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Griffiths EJ, Cash DJ, Kalra S et al. Time to surgery and 30-day morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures. Injury 2013; 44: 1949-1952
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Young SW, Walker CG, Pitto RP. Functional outcome of femoral peri prosthetic fracture and revision hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair study from the New Zealand Registry. Acta Orthop 2008; 79: 483-488
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB et al. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 2658-2662
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Holzapfel BM, Prodinger PM, Hoberg M et al. Periprothetische Frakturen bei Hüftendoprothese: Klassifikation, Diagnose und Therapiestrategien. Orthopäde 2010; 39: 519-535
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J et al. An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 1424-1430
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Franklin J, Malchau H. Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury 2007; 38: 655-660
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Tsiridis E, Narvani AA, Haddad FS et al. Impaction femoral allografting and cemented revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 1124-1132
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Jarit GJ, Sathappan SS, Panchal A et al. Fixation systems of greater trochanteric osteotomies: biomechanical and clinical outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15: 614-624
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Brady O, Kerry R, Masri B et al. The Vancouver classification of periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a rational approach to treatment. Tech Orthop 1999; 14: 107-114
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Moore RE, Baldwin K, Austin MS et al. A systematic review of open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures with or without allograft strut, cerclage, and locked plates. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 872-876
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Marsland D, Mears SC. A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2012; 3: 107-120
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Biggi F, Di Fabio S, DʼAntimo C et al. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: the stability of the implant dictates the type of treatment. J Orthop Traumatol 2010; 11: 1-5
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Zenni jr. EJ, Pomeroy DL, Caudle RJ. Ogden plate and other fixations for fractures complicating femoral endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 231: 83-90
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Fleischmann A, Chen A. Periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem: overcoming challenges and avoiding pitfalls. Ann Translat Med 2015; 3: 234
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Niikura T, Lee SY, Sakai Y et al. Treatment results of a periprosthetic femoral fracture case series: treatment method for Vancouver type B2 fractures can be customized. Clin Orthop Surg 2014; 6: 138-145
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Giannoudis PV, Kanakaris NK, Tsiridis E. Principles of internal fixation and selection of implants for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 2007; 38: 669-687
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Demos HA, Briones MS, White PH et al. A biomechanical comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation in normal and osteoporotic cadaveric bone. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 783-788
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Buttaro MA, Farfalli G, Paredes Nunez M et al. Locking compression plate fixation of Vancouver type-B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 1964-1969
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Graham SM, Moazen M, Leonidou A et al. Locking plate fixation for Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a critical analysis of 135 cases. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18: 426-436
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Ricci WM, Bolhofner BR, Loftus T et al. Indirect reduction and plate fixation, without grafting, for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures about a stable intramedullary implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 2240-2245
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Wähnert D, Schliemann B, Raschke MJ et al. Versorgung periprothetischer Frakturen. Neue Konzepte in der operativen Therapie. Orthopäde 2014; 43: 306-313
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Ehlinger M, Adam P, Moser T et al. Type C periprosthetic fractures treated with locking plate fixation with a mean follow up of 2.5 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96: 44-48
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Chakravarthy J, Bansal R, Cooper J. Locking plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver type B1 and type C periprosthetic fractures of femur: a report on 12 patients. Injury 2007; 38: 725-733
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Lunebourg A, Mouhsine E, Cherix S et al. Treatment of type B periprosthetic femur fractures with curved non-locking plate with eccentric holes: Retrospective study of 43 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101: 277-282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 El-Zayat BF, Zettl R, Efe T et al. Minimalinvasive Versorgung geriatrischer und osteoporotischer Femurfrakturen mit polyaxial-winkelstabilem Implantat (NCB-DF®). Unfallchirurg 2012; 115: 134-144
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Otto RJ, Moed BR, Bledsoe JG. Biomechanical comparison of polyaxial-type locking plates and a fixed-angle locking plate for internal fixation of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2009; 23: 645-652
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Wähnert D, Lenz M, Schlegel U et al. Cerclage handling for improved fracture management. A biomechanical study on the twisting procedure. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2011; 78: 208-214
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Frisch NB, Charters MA, Sikora-Klak J et al. Intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture: a biomechanical analysis of cerclage fixation. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1449-1457
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Springer BD, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 2156-2162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Mulay S, Hassan T, Birtwistle S et al. Management of types B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures by a tapered, fluted, and distally fixed stem. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20: 751-756
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Charnley J. The healing of human fractures in contact with self-curing acrylic cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1966; 47: 157-161
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Panjabi MM, Trumble T, Hult JE et al. Effect of femoral stem length on stress raisers associated with revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1985; 3: 447-455
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Klein GR, Parvizi J, Rapuri V et al. Proximal femoral replacement for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1777-1781
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Briant-Evans TW, Veeramootoo D, Tsiridis E et al. Cement-in-cement stem revision for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. A 3-year follow-up of 23 cases. Acta Orthop 2009; 80: 548-552
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Kwong LM, Miller AJ, Lubinus P. A modular distal fixation option for proximal bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 2- to 6-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (03) Suppl. 1 S94-S97
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Graham SM, Mak JH, Moazen M et al. Periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison between proximal locking screws and cables. J Orthop Sci 2015; 20: 875-880
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 Brand S, Ettinger M, Omar M et al. Concepts and potential future developments for treatment of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. Open Orthop J 2015; 9: 405-411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 59 Brand S, Klotz J, Hassel T et al. Different thermal conductivity in drilling of cemented compared with cementless hip prostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur: an experimental biomechanical analysis. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 1885-1889
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 60 Wähnert D, Lange JH, Schulze M et al. The potential of implant augmentation in the treatment of osteoporotic distal femur fractures: a biomechanical study. Injury 2013; 44: 808-812
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar