SpringerLink
Log in

Konzept zur Behandlung periprothetischer proximaler Femurfrakturen

Concept for the treatment of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Unfallchirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Verbunden mit dem demografischen Wandel und verbesserten Standzeiten von Hüftgelenkendoprothesen steigen die Inzidenzen periprothetischer proximaler Femurfrakturen. Das dargestellte Behandlungskonzept beinhaltet eine sorgfältige Planung der Versorgungsstrategie, bei der neben patientenindividuellen Risikofaktoren der Frakturtyp, die Stabilität der Prothese, aber auch die Knochenqualität Einfluss darauf haben, ob eine alleinige osteosynthetische Versorgung oder zusätzlich ein Prothesenwechsel erforderlich ist.

Abstract

Due to demographic changes and increased survival rates of total hip arthroplasties, the incidence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures is increasing. The current treatment concept requires accurate preoperative planning. Besides patient-related risk factors, fracture type, prosthesis stability, and bone quality influence whether osteosynthesis or a revision arthroplasty is required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Maderbacher G et al (2022) Results and lessons learned in fast-track arthroplasty. Orthopade 51(5):374–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chatziagorou G et al (2019) Incidence and demographics of 1751 surgically treated periprosthetic femoral fractures around a primary hip prosthesis. Hip Int 29(3):282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sidler-Maier CC, Waddell JP (2015) Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop 39(9):1673–1682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lindahl H (2007) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 38(6):651–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lamb JN et al (2022) Mortality after postoperative periprosthetic fracture of the femur after hip arthroplasty in the last decade: meta-analysis of 35 cohort studies including 4841 patients. J Arthroplasty 37(2):398–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Griffiths EJ et al (2013) Time to surgery and 30-day morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures. Injury 44(12):1949–1952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mardian S et al (2017) Cardiac disease and advanced age increase the mortality risk following surgery for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 99-B(7):921–926

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mardian S et al (2015) Adequate surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following hip arthroplasty does not correlate with functional outcome and quality of life. Int Orthop 39(9):1701–1708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gwinner C et al (2015) Bicortical screw fixation provides superior biomechanical stability but devastating failure modes in periprosthetic femur fracture care using locking plates. Int Orthop 39(9):1749–1755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Li C et al (2023) The role of biopsy in diagnosing infection after hip and knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143(4):1779–1792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quinlan ND, Jennings JM (2023) Joint aspiration for diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection: when, how, and what tests? Arthroplasty 5(1):43

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res (420):80–95

  13. Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 96-B(6):713–716

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marsland D, Mears SC (2012) A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 3(3):107–120

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Neitzke C et al (2022) Contemporary use of trochanteric plates in periprosthetic femur fractures: a displaced trochanter will not be tamed. J Arthroplasty

  16. Chatziagorou G, Lindahl H, Karrholm J (2019) Surgical treatment of vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures: patient characteristics and outcomes of 1381 fractures treated in Sweden between 2001 and 2011. Bone Joint J 101-B(1):1447–1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mondanelli N et al (2021) Combined surgical and medical treatment for vancouver B1 and C periprosthetic femoral fractures: a proposal of a therapeutic algorithm while retaining the original stable stem. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 12:21514593211067072

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lenz M et al (2021) Biomechanical evaluation of retrograde docking nailing to a total hip arthroplasty stem in a periprosthetic femur fracture model. Injury 52(1):53–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lehmann W et al (2012) What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. Int Orthop 36(12):2441–2446

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lenz M et al (2013) Mechanical behavior of fixation components for periprosthetic fracture surgery. Clin Biomech 28(9–10):988–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Perren SM et al (2011) Cerclage, evolution and potential of a Cinderella technology. an overview with reference to periprosthetic fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 78(3):190–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Märdian S, Schütz M (2022) Distal femur periprosthetic fracture—internal fixation with plate. In: Stannard JP, Schmidt A, Kfuri M (Hrsg) Knee surgery—tricks of the trade. Thieme,

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mardian S et al (2015) Working length of locking plates determines interfragmentary movement in distal femur fractures under physiological loading. Clin Biomech 30(4):391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wahnert D et al (2020) Periprosthetic fracture fixation in Vancouver B1 femoral shaft fractures: a biomechanical study comparing two plate systems. J Orthop Translat 24:150–154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore RE et al (2014) A systematic review of open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures with or without allograft strut, cerclage, and locked plates. J Arthroplasty 29(5):872–876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mardian S et al (2015) Interfragmentary lag screw fixation in locking plate constructs increases stiffness in simple fracture patterns. Clin Biomech 30(8):814–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. González-Martín D et al (2022) Osteosynthesis versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

  28. Platzer P et al (2011) Management and outcome of interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 42(11):1219–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tibbo ME et al (2021) Outcomes of operatively treated interprosthetic femoral fractures. Bone Joint J 103-b(7 Supple B):122–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Soenen M et al (2013) Stemmed TKA in a femur with a total hip arthroplasty: is there a safe distance between the stem tips? J Arthroplasty 28(8):1437–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Iesaka K, Kummer FJ, Di Cesare PE (2005) Stress risers between two ipsilateral intramedullary stems: a finite-element and biomechanical analysis. J Arthroplasty 20(3):386–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dexel J et al (2015) Ipsilateral THA after stemmed TKA: risk of interprosthetic fracture? Orthopade 44(7):489–496

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kösters C et al (2022) Peri- and interprosthetic femoral fractures-current concepts and new developments for internal fixation. J Clin Med 11(5)

  34. Mori T et al (2023) What are the complication rates and factors associated with total femur replacement after tumor resection? Findings from the Japanese musculoskeletal oncology group. Clin Orthop Relat Res

  35. Gunther T et al (2021) Functional outcome after lower limb periprosthetic fractures. Injury 52(Suppl 1):S44–S47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moreta J et al (2015) Functional and radiological outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. Injury 46(2):292–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stoffel K et al (2016) The influence of the operation technique and implant used in the treatment of periprosthetic hip and interprosthetic femur fractures: a systematic literature review of 1571 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(4):553–561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Griffiths EJ, Cash DJ, Kalra S (2013) Time to surgery and 30-day morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures. Injury 44:1949–1952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB (2007) Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2658–2662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland

    Vera Jaecker, Fabienne Hahn, Annika Steinmeier, Ulrich Stöckle &  Sven Märdian

  2. Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Deutschland

    Vera Jaecker

Authors
  1. Vera Jaecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabienne Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annika Steinmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Stöckle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sven Märdian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Märdian.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

S. Märdian ist Berater der Firma aap Implantate GmbH. Im Beitrag werden Implantate dieser Firma gezeigt, an deren Entwicklung S. Märdian beteiligt war. V. Jaecker, F. Hahn, A. Steinmeier und U. Stöckle geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

Tina Histing, Tübingen

Hinweis des Verlags

Der Verlag bleibt in Hinblick auf geografische Zuordnungen und Gebietsbezeichnungen in veröffentlichten Karten und Institutsadressen neutral.

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaecker, V., Hahn, F., Steinmeier, A. et al. Konzept zur Behandlung periprothetischer proximaler Femurfrakturen. Unfallchirurgie 127, 349–355 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-023-01405-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-023-01405-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation