The impact of polyethylene abrasion on the occurrence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in patients with total hip arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: In addition to abrasion-induced osteolysis and ensuing instabilities, the polyethylene (PE) abrasion of total hip arthroplasty (THA) inlays can also cause gait instability due to the decentralization of the hip joint. The current literature yields, as yet, insufficient findings whether these two factors are linked directly or indirectly to a higher risk for periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PPFF). The aim of our retrospective evaluation is to analyse the impact of PE abrasion on the pathology of PPFF in patients with THA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective evaluation comprises all PPFF in patients with THA in the period from 01/2010 up to 12/2016. The study group (SG) included 66 cases (n = 66). The control group (CG) was comprised of patients with asymptomatic THA (n = 66), who were treated by our outpatient department including routine check-ups and X-ray examinations. We used the matched-pair methodology to scale the period of postsurgical care of the CG to the lifetime of the implant up to PPFF in the SG. We included epidemiologic data, radiological femoral head decentralization, osteolysis (Gruen classification), instabilities, acetabular cup position, and implant properties in our analysis. For the SG, we also included intra-operative signs of abrasion. FINDINGS: The SG showed significantly higher numbers of decentralized THA as signs of inlay erosion with 73% compared to only 41% in the CG (p > 0.001). The SG showed 1 ± 0.68 mm hip joint decentralization as to 0.5 ± 0.59 mm in the CG (p = 0.004). We found significantly more cases of osteolysis in the SG (n = 25) than in the CG (n = 13) (p = 0.003). We found no notable differences in acetabular cup inclination or anteversion as well as cup size. However, differences were significant in femoral head size (SG 32 ± 2.3 mm, CG 36 ± 2.4 mm; p = 0.042) and head material. We found more widespread use of metal femoral heads in the SG than in the CG (SG 1:1, CG 1:21; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: PPFF patients showed significantly higher rates of inlay erosion, resulting in femoral head decentralization and osteolysis. The higher rate of fracture is likely caused by the increasing instability of the implant fixation due to abrasion-induced osteolysis and the associated degradation of bone quality. It is conceivable that the abrasion and decentralization of the THA can also lead to gait instability, and thus, a higher proneness to falls. Gait instability can also be aggravated by increased granulation tissue and effusion due to the inlay abrasion. Although this cannot be substantiated by the investigation. In patients with decentralization of the THA and osteolysis, a radiological follow-up should be performed, and in case of gait instability (femoral head and) inlay replacements should be considered.

Results after surgical treatment of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. Osteosynthesis with prosthesis preservation vs. prosthesis change.

Background: Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the femur close to the hip joint have serious consequences for most geriatric affected patients. In principle, apart from the highly uncommon conservative therapy, there are two therapeutic options. On the one hand, the prosthesis-preserving treatment by means of osteosynthesis using plates and/or cerclages in general is available. On the other hand, a (partial) change of the prosthesis with optionally additive osteosynthesis or a proximal femoral replacement can be performed because of prosthesis loosening or non-reconstructable comminuted fractures as well as most cemented stem variations. The aim of this retrospective study is the analysis of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in the presence of a total hip arthroplasty (THA). The outcome of the operated patients is to be investigated depending on the type of care (osteosynthesis with prosthesis preservation vs. prosthesis change). Material and methods: In a retrospective case analysis, 80 patients with THA and PPF were included. They were divided into two groups. Group I represents the osteosynthetic treatment to preserve the implanted THA (n=42). Group II (n=38) includes those patients who were treated by a change of their endoprosthesis with or without additional osteosynthesis. Specifics of all patients, like gender, age at fracture, interval between fracture and implantation, length of in-patient stay, body mass index, osteoporosis, corticomedullary index and complications such as infections, re-fracture, loosening, material failure or other complications, were recorded and compared. Furthermore, the patients were re-examined by a questionnaire and the score according to Merle d'Aubigné and Postel. Results: In group I the mean follow-up time was 48.5±23 months (4 years) whereas group II amounted 32.5±24.5 months (2.7 years) (p=0.029). Besides, there were significant differences in age (81± 11 years vs. 76±10 years, p=0.047) and length of in-patient stay (14.5±8.6 days vs. 18.0±16.7 days, p=0.014). According to the score of Merle d'Aubigné and Postel, there were significantly better values for the pain in group II with comparable values for mobility and walking ability. Conclusion: The treatment of periprosthetic proximal fractures of the femur is dependent on the classification (Vancouver and Johannsen) and in particular on the prosthetic anchoring as well as the extent of the comminution zone. Older patients and patients with osteoporosis are more frequently treated with an endoprosthesis revision. Patients, who have been treated with an osteosynthesis for preserving their endoprosthesis, showed a shorter length of in-patient stay and fewer complications than people with replacement surgery. In contrast to that, patients with prosthesis revision had better outcomes concerning the score of Merle d'Aubigné and Postel.

A new classification of TKA periprosthetic femur fractures considering the implant type.

BACKGROUND: The treatment aims of periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the distal femur are a gentle stabilization, an early load-bearing capacity and a rapid postoperative mobilization of the affected patients. For the therapy planning of PPF a standardized classification is necessary which leads to a clear and safe therapy recommendation. Despite different established classifications, there is none that includes the types of prosthesis used in the assessment. For this purpose, the objective of this work is to create a new more extensive fracture and implant-related classification of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur based on available classifications which allows distinct therapeutic recommendations. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis all patients who were treated in the University Hospital Leipzig from 2010 to 2016 due to a distal femur fracture with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were established. To create an implant-associated classification the cases were discussed in a panel of experienced orthopaedists and well-practiced traumatologists with a great knowledge in the field of endoprosthetics and fracture care. In this context, two experienced surgeons classified 55 consecutive fractures according to Su et al., Lewis and Rorabeck and by the new created classification. In this regard, the interobserver reliability was determined for two independent raters in terms of Cohen Kappa. RESULTS: On the basis of the most widely recognized classifications of Su et al. as well as Lewis and Rorabeck, we established an implant-dependent classification for PPF of the distal femur. In accordance with the two stated classifications four fracture types were created and defined. Moreover, the four most frequent prosthesis types were integrated. Finally, a new classification with 16 subtypes was generated based on four types of fracture and four types of prosthesis. Considering all cases the presented implant-associated classification (κ = 0.74) showed a considerably higher interobserver reliability compared to the other classifications of Su et al. (κ = 0.39) as well as Lewis and Rorabeck (κ = 0.31). Excluding the cases which were only assessable by the new classification, it still shows a higher interobserver reliability (κ = 0.70) than the other ones (κ = 0.63 or κ = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: The new classification system for PPF of the distal femur following TKA considers fracture location and implant type. It is easy to use, shows agood interobserver reliability and allows conclusions to be drawn on treatment recommendations. Moreover, further studies on the evaluation of the classification are necessary and planned.