Download PDF
Arthritis und Rheuma 2014; 34(04): 219-224
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1617996
Implantatsicherheit und Nachsorge von Implantaten
Schattauer GmbH

Die periprothetische Femurfraktur als Komplikation der endoprothetischen Versorgung von Hüftgelenken

Periprosthetic fractures as a complication of total joint replacements of the hip
H. Meyer
1   Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Magdeburg
,
W. Güthoff
1   Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Magdeburg
,
C. H. Lohmann
1   Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Magdeburg, Magdeburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die periprothetische Femurfraktur ist eine für den Patienten schwerwiegende Problematik mit einer hohen Komplikationsrate, deren Therapie an das gesamte Operationsteam höchste Anforderungen stellt. Die Therapie orientiert sich anhand der Vancouver-Klassifikation und beinhaltet von einfachen Osteosynthesen bis zum totalen Femurersatz sämtliche Aspekte der orthopädisch-unfallchirurgischen operativen Therapie.

Summary

The periprosthetic fracture of the femur is a serious problem associated with a high rate of complications and a challenging therapy with highest demands to the orthopaedic surgeon. The surgery includes all aspects of revision surgery and is managed by the Vancouver-Classification.

Schlüsselwörter

Gelenkersatz - periprothetische Fraktur - Klassifikation - Revisionsoperationen

Keywords

Joint replacement - periprosthetic fracture - classification - revision surgery
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Morscher E, Elke R, Berli B. Classification and Treatment methods of acetabular deficencies. In: Duparc J. Surgical techniques in orthopaedics and traumatology. Paris: Elsevier; 2000: 55-450
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Schwarzkopf R, Oni J, Marwin S. Total Hip Arthroplasty Femoral Fractures. A Review of Classification and current Treatment. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2013; 71 (01) 68-78.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Callaghan JJ. et al. Acetabular fracture associated with cementless acetabular component insertion: a report of 13 cases. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14 (04) 426-431.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Adolphson P, Jonsson U, Kalen R. Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1987; 106 (06) 353-357.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Berry DJ. Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 1999; 30 (02) 183-190.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 1995; 44: 293-304.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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-A (11) 2156-2162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H. et al. Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 1215-1222.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Furnes O, Havelin LI, Espehaug B. et al. Report 2008. The Norwegian arthroplasty register; Bergen: 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Karrholm J, Garellick G, Rogmark C, Herberts P. Annual report 2007. Swedish hip arthroplasty register; Gothenburg: 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Ballard WT, Callaghan JJ, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. The results of improved cementing techniques for total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. A ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76: 959-964.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Elke R. Particle disease. Is tribology a topic in revision surgery?. Orthopade 2001; 30 (05) 258-265.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Hess T. The significance of wear and material fatigue in loosening of hip prostheses. Orthopade 1989; 18 (05) 350-369.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sabokbar A, Kudo O, Athanasou NA. Two distinct cellular mechanisms of osteoclast formation and bone resorption in periprosthetic osteolysis. J Orthop Res 2003; 21 (01) 73-80.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (05) 649-661.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 420: 80.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS. European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 1576.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (06) 1047-1050.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Berry DJ. Management of periprosthetic fractures: the hip. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (Suppl. 01) 11-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lindahl H, Malchau H, Oden A, Garellick G. Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Br 2006; 88B:: 26-30
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM, Malchau H. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2007; 89: 2658-2652.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Moloney G, Westrick E, Siska P, Tarkin I. Treatment of periprosthetic femur fractures around a wellfixed hip arthroplasty implant: span the whole bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134: 9-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur: principles of prevention and management. Instr Course Lect 1998; 47: 237-242.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Munro JT, Masri BA, Garbus DS, Duncan CP. Tapered fluted modular titanium stems in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 peri-prosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (Suppl A): 17-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Barden B, von Knoch M, Fitzek JG, Löer F. Periprosthetic fractures with extensive bone loss treated with onlay strut allografts. Int Orthop 2003; 27 (03) 164-167.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wong P, Gross AE. The use of structural allografts for treating periprosthetic fractures about the hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 1999; 30 (02) 259-264.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gross AE, Blackley H, Wong P. et al. The role of allografts in revision arthroplasty of the hip. Instr Course Lect 2002; 51: 103-113.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Winkelmann W. Reconstruction of the proximal femur with the MUTARS® system. Orthopade 2010; 39 (10) 942-948.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kotz R. Megaprostheses: KMFTR to GMRS. Orthopade 2010; 39 (10) 922-930.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ham SJ, Schraffordt Koops H, Veth RP. et al. Limb Salvage Surgery for Primary Bone Sarcoma of the Lower Extremities: Long-Term Consequences of Endoprosthetic Reconstructions. Annals of Surgical Oncology 1998; 5 (05) 423-436.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sharma S, Turcotte RE, Isler MH, Wong C. Cemented rotating hinge endoprosthesis for limb salvage of distal femur tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 450: 28-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mittermayer F, Krepler P, Dominkus M. et al. Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 388: 167-177.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S. et al. Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 1285-1293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar