The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:1215-1222.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00457
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activity for this article:
 CME 2: April, May, June 2006 (publication date July 5, 2006; expiration dat...
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lindahl, H.
Right arrow Articles by Malchau, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lindahl, H.
Right arrow Articles by Malchau, H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Three Hundred and Twenty-one Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

Hans Lindahl, MD1, Göran Garellick, MD, PhD1, Hans Regnér, MD1, Peter Herberts, MD, PhD1 and Henrik Malchau, MD, PhD2

1 Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Surgical Sciences (H.L., G.G., and P.H.), and Department of Radiology (H.R.), Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, SE-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden. E-mail address for H. Lindahl: hans.lindahl{at}vgregion.se
2 Department of Orthopaedics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, GRJ 1126, Boston, MA 02114

Investigation performed at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, Göteborg, and the Department of Orthopaedics, NU-sjukvården, Uddevalla, Sweden

In support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from Göteborgs Läkaresällskap, Felix Neuberghs stiftelse. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the demographics, incidence, and results of treatment of periprosthetic fractures in a nationwide observational study.

Methods: In the years 1999 and 2000, 321 periprosthetic fractures were reported to the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. All of the associated hospital records were collected. At the time of follow-up, the Harris hip score, a health-related quality-of-life measure (the EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] index), and patient satisfaction were used as outcome measurements. A radiologist performed the radiographic evaluation.

Results: Ninety-one patients, with a mean age of 73.8 years, sustained a fracture after one or several revision procedures, and 230 patients, with a mean age of 77.9 years, sustained a fracture after a primary total hip replacement. Minor trauma, including a fall to the floor, and a spontaneous fracture were the main etiologies for the injuries. A high number of patients had a loose stem at the time of the fracture (66% in the primary replacement group and 51% in the revision group). Eighty-eight percent of the fractures were classified as Vancouver type B; however, there was difficulty with preoperative categorization of the fractures radiographically. There was a high failure rate resulting in a low short to mid-term prosthetic survival rate. The sixty-six-month survival rate for the entire fracture group, with reoperation as the end point, was 74.8% ± 5.0%. One factor associated with fracture risk was implant design.

Conclusions: On the basis of these findings, we believe that high-risk patients should have routine radiographic follow-up. Such a routine could identify a loose implant and make intervention possible before a fracture occurred. Furthermore, we recommend an exploration of the joint to test the stability of the implant in patients with a Vancouver type-B fracture in which the stability of the stem is uncertain.

Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. Davidson, J. Pike, D. Garbuz, C. P. Duncan, and B. A. Masri
Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty. Evaluation and Management
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2008; 90(9): 2000 - 2012.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. Morshed and M. Bhandari
Clinical Trial Design in Fracture-Healing Research: Meeting the Challenge
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., February 1, 2008; 90(Supplement_1): 55 - 61.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
T. Bhattacharyya, D. Chang, J. B. Meigs, D. M. Estok II, and H. Malchau
Mortality After Periprosthetic Fracture of the Femur
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2007; 89(12): 2658 - 2662.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
P. A. Cole, T. Miclau III, and M. Bhandari
What's New in Orthopaedic Trauma
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2007; 89(11): 2560 - 2577.
[Full Text] [PDF]