Distal femoral fractures: periprosthetic fractures have four times more complications than non-periprosthetic fractures and cerclage should be avoided: retrospective analysis of 206 patients.

BACKGROUND: Distal femoral fractures account for less than 1% of all fractures. The therapy of choice is usually surgical stabilization. Despite advances in implant development over the past few years, complication rate remains comparatively high. The aim of this study is to analyze our results with plate fixation of distal femoral fractures with a focus on complication and fracture healing rates. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients (> 18 years) with distal femoral fractures treated at an urban level I trauma center between 2015 and 2022 were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 206 patients (167 female, 39 male) with an average age of 75 (SD 16) years were diagnosed with a fracture of the distal femur. One hundred fourteen of these patients were treated surgically by means of plate osteosynthesis. In 13 cases (11.41%), a revision procedure had to be performed. The indication for surgical revision was mechanical failure in eight cases (7.02%) and septic complication in five cases (4.39%). Periprosthetic fractures were more likely to cause complications overall (19.6% versus 4.76%) and further included all documented septic complications. The analysis of modifiable surgical factors in the context of plate osteosynthesis showed higher complication rates for cerclage in the fracture area compared with plate-only stabilizations (44.44% versus 22.22%). CONCLUSIONS: The data show an increased amount of revisions and a significantly higher number of septic complications in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur compared with non-periprosthetic fractures. The detected combination of plates together with cerclage was associated with higher complication rates. Level of evidence Level III retrospective comparative study.

Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with compaction compared with broaching in cementless THA: a single-center study of 6,788 hips.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:  Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a significant complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although biomechanical studies have indicated that the technique by which the femoral canal is prepared plays a role, few clinical studies have reported on how this might affect the fracture risk. This study compares the fracture risk between compaction and broaching with toothed instruments in cementless THA. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the quality register of a high-volume hospital was used. All primary arthroplasties using the Corail stem (DePuy Synthes) were included. All femoral fractures occurring within the first 90 days after the operation were included in the analysis. We determined the relative risk of sustaining PFF with compaction compared with broaching and adjusted for confounders (sex, age group, BMI, and use of a collared stem) using multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS:  6,788 primary THAs performed between November 2009 and May 2023 were available for analysis. 66% were women and the mean age was 65.0 years. 129 (1.9%) fractures occurred during the first 90 days after the operation, 92 (2.3%) in the compaction group and 37 (1.3%) in the broaching group. The unadjusted relative risk of fracture in the compaction group compared with the broaching group was 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.66), whereas the adjusted relative risk was 1.70 (CI 1.10-2.70). CONCLUSION: Compaction was associated with more periprosthetic fractures than broaching (2.3% versus 1.3%) within 90 days after surgery.

What features of stem increase the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture during cementless primary hip arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION: Cementless fixation has become increasingly popular in hip arthroplasty due to its shorter operation time, easier technique, biologic fixation, and avoidance of bone cement implantation syndrome compared to cemented fixation. However, intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (IOPFx) is a disconcerting complication during cementless hip arthroplasty. Our purpose was to identify the features of cementless stem that increase the risk of IOPFx during primary hip arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all 4806 hip arthroplasties that was performed in a single institution from May 2003 to December 2020. Age at the index arthroplasty, sex, body mass index, physical status, ambulatory function, side of the operation, operational history, cause of the index arthroplasty, type of arthroplasty, surgical approach, surgeon, implant information, and events during the operation were investigated. The shoulder geometry and length of stem were also reviewed. The event of interest was narrowed down to IOPFx among various records of intraoperative events. RESULTS: We found IOPFx of 2.6% among all the hips operated with cementless stem. In the multivariable analysis, female (OR = 1.52), childhood hip disease (OR = 2.30), stove-pipe femur (OR = 2.43), combined approach (OR = 2.60), and standard length of stem (OR = 1.59) were found to be significant risk factors of IOPFx. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a stem with a standard length is significantly associated with risk of IOPFx compared to a shortened stem. These findings highlight the importance of careful consideration in terms of the risk of IOPFx when standard length cementless stem is chosen.

The "blownknee" patient's stress fracture of distal tibial component after unilateral TKA: A case report.

RATIONALE: Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) are rare complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The most common PPF after TKA is supracondylar femoral fracture, which is a relatively rare complication that is usually associated with high-energy trauma, with a reported incidence ranging from 0.4 to 1.7% according to the AOANJRR. However, in TKA patients, it is rarer that the stress fracture around the tibial prosthesis occurs due to changes in the lower limb force line, increasing weight-bearing, and changes in walking gait. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 68-year-old woman visited our hospital with "both knees had aggravated pain and deformity for 8 years." TKA was performed first on the left knee and the patient was discharged within 1 week. Three months later, the patient complained of pain in the upper middle 1/3 part of the medial tibia for 2 weeks, which gradually worsened and affected weight-bearing. DIAGNOSES: Physical examination showed that the left knee joint presented varus deformity, and the right valgus deformity, which diagnosed as osteoarthritis of both knees and was so-called "blownknee". The disease was initially diagnosed as osteoarthritis of both knees on first admission and PPF of the tibia in second. INTERVENTIONS: Three operations were performed on this patient. The first was TKA of the left knee, the second was open reduction and internal fixation of the PPF of the tibia 3 months after the first operation, and the third was TKA of the right knee. OUTCOMES: Until now, the patient has had no recurrent PPF, and the fracture is healing from the last X-ray. LESSONS: Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of PPF after TKA, especially in such patients, the most preferred surgical treatment method was open reduction and internal fixation of fractures using locking plates, and if the PPF with loosened implants, Revision TKA, or megaprosthesis was the better choice.

Higher rates of intraoperative fractures with compaction broaching compared to conventional broaching during hip hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (IPFF) is a known iatrogenic complication during hemiarthroplasty (HA) which may lead to inferior outcomes. The risk factors for IPFF during HA in displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) remains to be fully elucidated. This study aims to compare IPFF rates between compaction broaching and conventional broaching techniques for cementless HA in FNF. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed institutional surgical data of patients who underwent cementless HA for displaced FNF from January 2010 to January 2022. Patients were stratified into two groups based on the broaching system: conventional broaching and compaction broaching. The presence, location, and treatment of IPFF were assessed for both groups. Effect of IPFF on postoperative weight-bearing status, mortality readmission and revision rates were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1,586 patients included in the study. 1252 patients (78.9%) in the conventional broaching group and 334 patients (21.1%) in the compaction broaching group. A total of 104 IPFF were found (6.5%). As compared to conventional broaching, compaction broaching was associated with significant higher IPFF rates (12.9% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001, OR 2.84, CI 1.88-4.30). The location of the IPFF was similar between groups (p = 0.366), as well as the intraoperative treatment (p = 0.103) and postoperative weight-bearing status (p = 0.640). Surgical time, mortality rates, readmission rates and revision rates were comparable between groups. In a multivariate regression analysis, compaction broaching (OR, 4.24; p < 0.001) was independently associated with IPFF. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals higher rates of IPFF associated with compaction broaching. Although this finding may have minimal clinical relevance, surgeons should consider these results when considering implant selection.

Robot-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty is Associated With an Increased Risk of Periprosthetic Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) aims to restore joint function and relieve pain. New technology, such as robot assistance, offers the potential to reduce human error, improve precision, and improve postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between conventional and robot-assisted THA. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study utilizing a national database from 2016 to 2019. Patients undergoing THA, conventional or robot-assisted, were identified via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code. Multivariate regressions were performed to assess outcomes between groups. Negative binomial regressions were performed to assess discharge disposition, readmission, and reoperation. Gamma regressions with log-link were used to assess total charges and lengths of hospital stays. Patient demographics and comorbidities, measured via the Elixhauser comorbidity index, were controlled for in our analyses. A total of 1,216,395 patients undergoing THA, 18,417 (1.51%) with robotic assistance, were identified. RESULTS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted procedures had increased surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 1.53]; P < .001), including periprosthetic fracture (OR 1.63 [95% CI 1.35 to 1.98]; P < .001). Notably, these patients also had significantly greater total charges (OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.11 to 1.30]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assistance in THA is associated with an increased risk of surgical complications, including periprosthetic fracture, while incurring greater charges. STUDY DESIGN: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Study.

Periprosthetic Fractures: A Rising Tide of Hip Arthroplasty Failure Noted in the American Joint Replacement Registry and the Preventative Role of Cemented Stems.

BACKGROUND: This investigation examined cemented femoral component use in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and its impact on the incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PPFx), a common failure mode in THA. The study leverages data from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) to assess trends in cemented femoral component usage over time, its association with PPFx rates, and compares the survivorship and 90-day complication rates between cemented and cementless femoral component THAs. METHODS: Primary THAs, captured in the AJRR, in patients aged 65 years and older from 2012 to 2021 were analyzed. Variables considered included age, sex, race, region, teaching status, year, Charlson comorbidity index, and institution bed size. Analysis compared fixation types for THA on all-cause linked revision and PPFx. Logistic regression models analyzed the odds ratios for all-cause linked revision and PPFx for any follow-up time as well as for 90-day revision. The models were adjusted for the listed variables. RESULTS: During the study period, the rate of cement utilization as a percentage of primary THAs performed and reported to the AJRR increased from 4.4 to 8.3%. The rate of THA failure from PPFx increased from 11.4 to 33.3%. When both fixation groups were compared in the univariate analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in all demographic variables (P < .001). To account for this, multivariable logistic regression models were applied. In our models, cemented stems showed a 54.4% (odds ratio: 0.456; 95% confidence interval: 0.347 to 0.599; P < .0001) and 65.8% (odds ratio: 0.342; 95% confidence interval: 0.237 to 0.493; P < .0001) lower risk of PPFx linked and PPFx early linked revision, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic fractures are becoming a leading failure mode for THAs in the AJRR. Given cemented fixation's relative resistance to this failure mode compared to cementless fixation, we should consider increasing the utilization of this technique.

Prior fragility fractures are associated with a higher risk of 8-year complications following total shoulder arthroplasty.

Patients who sustain fragility fractures prior to total shoulder arthroplasty have significantly higher risk for bone health-related complications within 8 years of procedure. Identification of these high-risk patients with an emphasis on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative bone health optimization may help minimize these preventable complications. PURPOSE: As the population ages, more patients with osteoporosis are undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), including those who have sustained a prior fragility fracture. Sustaining a fragility fracture before TSA has been associated with increased risk of short-term revision rates, periprosthetic fracture (PPF), and secondary fragility fractures but long-term implant survivorship in this patient population is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the association of prior fragility fractures with 8-year risks of revision TSA, periprosthetic fracture, and secondary fragility fracture. METHODS: Patients aged 50 years and older who underwent TSA were identified in a large national database. Patients were stratified based on whether they sustained a fragility fracture within 3 years prior to TSA. Patients who had a prior fragility fracture (7631) were matched 1:1 to patients who did not based on age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and alcohol use. Kaplan-Meier and Cox Proportional Hazards analyses were used to observe the cumulative incidences of all-cause revision, periprosthetic fracture, and secondary fragility fracture within 8 years of index surgery. RESULTS: The 8-year cumulative incidence of revision TSA (5.7% vs. 4.1%), periprosthetic fracture (3.8% vs. 1.4%), and secondary fragility fracture (46.5% vs. 10.1%) were significantly higher for those who had a prior fragility fracture when compared to those who did not. On multivariable analysis, a prior fragility fracture was associated with higher risks of revision (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.74; p < 0.001), periprosthetic fracture (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.18-4.07; p < 0.001) and secondary fragility fracture (HR, 8.39; 95% CI, 7.62-9.24; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prior fragility fracture was a significant risk factor for revision, periprosthetic fracture, and secondary fragility fracture within 8 years of primary TSA. Identification of these high-risk patients with an emphasis on preoperative and postoperative bone health optimization may help minimize these complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Management of periprosthetic hip fractures: current status and prospects; experience of the traumatology and orthopedics department of Mohammed VI University Hospital, Marrakech.

INTRODUCTION: The increase in hip arthroplasties predicts a rise in periprosthetic fractures in Morocco, posing challenges for orthopedic surgeons. Therapeutic strategies vary considerably, highlighting the absence of a universally accepted treatment protocol. AIM: To analyze the management of per-prosthetic hip fractures, while addressing the challenges associated with them. METHODS: This was a retrospective study, conducted in the trauma-orthopedics department between December 2015 and November 2022. Nineteen patients who presented to the hospital with fractures around a hip prosthesis were included. RESULT: Nineteen periprosthetic fractures were observed. The majority of patients (68%) were women, with an average age of 68. The Vancouver classification showed that 52.6% of the fractures were type B1, and 21.1% type C, while the other fracture types were distributed differently. These fractures were mainly associated with diagnoses such as femoral neck fracture (63.2%) and coxarthrosis (31.6%). We observed variations in treatment recommendations and results between the different series analyzed. We noted discrepancies with certain series concerning fracture types and therapeutic choices. However, in our series, we achieved satisfactory results, with successful consolidation and the absence of complications in all patients. CONCLUSION: These results underline the importance of an individualized approach to fracture management, taking into account the specificities of each case.

Periprosthetic tibial fracture as a complication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current insights.

Periprosthetic fracture following knee arthroplasty is a rare but devastating complication associated with significant morbidity. With unicompartmental knee arthroplasty being performed far less frequently than total knee arthroplasty, periprosthetic fracture following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty presents a particular challenge to orthopaedic surgeons, due to clinical unfamiliarity and sparsity of literature. An up-to-date review of the epidemiology, risk factors, and management strategies for PPF after UKA is presented.

Fixation or Revision for Periprosthetic Fractures: Epidemiology, New Trends, and Projections in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures can be devastating complications after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The management of periprosthetic fractures is complex, spanning expertise in arthroplasty and trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine and project trends in the operative treatment of periprosthetic fractures in the United States. METHODS: A large, public and private payer database was queried to capture all International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes for periprosthetic femoral and tibial fractures. Statistical models were created to assess trends in treatment for periprosthetic fractures and to predict future surgical rates. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to assess significance. A Bonferroni correction was applied where applicable to account for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: In this study, from 2016 to 2021, 121,298 patients underwent surgical treatment for periprosthetic fractures. There was a significant increase in the total number of periprosthetic fractures. The incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures rose by 38% and that for periprosthetic knee fractures rose by 73%. The number of periprosthetic fractures is predicted to rise 212% from 2016 to 2032. There was a relative increase in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) compared with revision arthroplasty for both periprosthetic hip fractures and periprosthetic knee fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic fractures are anticipated to impose a substantial health-care burden in the coming decades. Periprosthetic knee fractures are predominantly treated with ORIF rather than revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), whereas periprosthetic hip fractures are predominantly treated with revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) rather than ORIF. Both periprosthetic knee fractures and periprosthetic hip fractures demonstrated increasing trends in this study. The proportion of periprosthetic hip fractures treated with ORIF relative to revision THA has been increasing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Acute Periprosthetic Hip Fractures With Short, Uncemented Femoral Stems.

BACKGROUND: Uncemented femoral stems in hip arthroplasty have shown excellent long-term results, and several systematic studies indicate satisfactory performance of short stems. However, biomechanical and finite element analysis studies have suggested that shorter stems allow greater micromotion, producing greater strain at the implant-bone interface, which potentially increases the risk for periprosthetic fracture (PPF). We sought to assess this risk within our unit. METHODS: Our institution's arthroplasty database was searched for all primary total hip arthroplasties using short femoral stems performed between July 14, 2009 and August 29, 2022. The overall PPF rate and the PPF rate for individual femoral stems were established. Preoperative X-rays for each case were analyzed to characterize individual proximal femoral geometry. A data analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PPF. RESULTS: For the time period assessed, 3,192 short femoral stems were implanted. This included 1,561 of stem A and 1,631 of stem B. Women constituted 55.37% of the cohort. The average patient age was 66 years (range, 22 to 95). The PPF rate was 0.6%, with 19 PPFs identified at a follow-up of 3 months. There was a significantly higher fracture rate in stem A (0.96%) compared to stem B (0.25%) (P ≤ .01). Proximal femoral geometry, age, and sex were not determined to be risk factors for PPF in our cohort. Individual surgeons and surgical approaches appeared to confer no increased risk. There was no significant difference in average stem length, but multivariate analysis identified stem type and stem length as an independent risk factor for PPF. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified individual stem and stem length as independent risk factors for PPF within our cohort. PPF is a multifactorial issue, and consensus on emerging risk factors such as implant design will hopefully inform decisions that can provide further risk reduction for individual patients.

Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures After Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to identify the risk factors of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) after cementless total hip arthroplasty and rank them based on importance. METHODS: The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), osteoporosis, canal flare index (CFI), canal bone ratio (CBR), canal calcar ratio (CCR), stem design, and stem canal fill ratio (P1, P2, P3, and P4) of the proximal femoral medullary cavity of 111 total hip arthroplasty patients who had PFF and 388 who did not have PFF were analyzed. Independent-samples student t-tests were used for continuous variables, and Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables. The importance rankings of influencing factors were assessed using a random forest algorithm. Dimensionally reduced variables were then incorporated into a binary logistic regression model to determine the PFF-related risk factors. RESULTS: The mean age, BMI, CBR, CCR, and incidence of osteoporosis were higher in cases of PFF (all P < .001), while the mean CFI, P1, P2, P3, and P4 were lower in cases of PFF (P < .001, P = .033, P = .008, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively). Additionally, the stem design was also statistically associated with PFF (P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that advanced age, higher BMI, osteoporosis, stem design, lower CFI, higher CBR, higher CCR, lower P1, lower P2, lower P3, and lower P4 were the risk factors of PFF (P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, P = .010, P < .001, P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, and P = .007, respectively). The ranked importance of the risk factors for PFF was P3, CFI, osteoporosis, CBR, age, P4, P1, stem design, CCR, BMI, and P2. CONCLUSIONS: Lower P3, lower CFI, osteoporosis, higher CBR, advanced age, lower P4, lower P1, stem design, higher CCR, higher BMI, and lower P2 increased the risk of PFF.

Systemic Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Among Periprosthetic Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Most periprosthetic fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are fragility fractures that qualify patients for osteoporosis diagnoses. However, it remains unknown how many patients were diagnosed who had osteoporosis before injury or received the proper evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment after injury. METHODS: We identified 171 Vancouver B2 (109) and B3 (62) periprosthetic femur fractures treated with a modular fluted tapered stem from 2000 to 2018 at 1 institution. The mean patient age was 75 years (range, 35 to 94), 50% were women, and the mean body mass index was 29 (range, 17 to 60). We identified patients who had osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnoses, a fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX), bone mineral density (BMD) testing, an endocrinology consult, and osteoporosis medications. Age-appropriate BMD testing was defined as no later than 1 year after the recommended ages of 65 (women) or 70 years (men). The mean follow-up was 11 years (range, 4 to 21). RESULTS: Falls from standing height caused 94% of fractures and thus, by definition, qualified as osteoporosis-defining events. The prevalence of osteoporosis diagnosis increased from 20% before periprosthetic fracture to 39% after (P < .001). The prevalence of osteopenia diagnosis increased from 13% before the fracture to 24% after (P < .001). The prevalence of either diagnosis increased from 24% before fracture to 44% after (P < .001). No patients had documented FRAX scores before fracture, and only 2% had scores after. The prevalence of BMD testing was 21% before fracture and 22% after (P = .88). By the end of the final follow-up, only 16% had received age-appropriate BMD testing. The proportion of patients who had endocrinology consults increased from 6% before the fracture to 25% after (P < .001). The proportion on bisphosphonate therapy was 19% before fracture and 25% after (P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Although most periprosthetic fractures following THA are fragility fractures that qualify patients for osteoporosis diagnoses, there remain major gaps in diagnosis, screening, endocrinology follow-up, and treatment. Like nonarthroplasty fragility fractures, a systematic approach is needed after periprosthetic fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Postoperative Medial Malleolar Fractures in Total Ankle Replacement Are Associated With Decreased Medial Malleolar Width and Varus Malalignment: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding risk factors associated with periprosthetic medial malleolar fractures in total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). This case-control study aimed to identify the risk factors and analyze the effect of prophylactic screw fixation in preventing a medial malleolar fracture after TAA. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted on 149 patients who underwent primary TAA. Twenty patients with postoperative medial malleolar fractures >4 weeks postoperatively (cases) were identified. An additional 129 patients (controls) were randomly selected from the TAA database. Radiographic evaluation included tibial component coronal alignment and postoperative medial malleolar width. Demographics and radiographic variables were compared between cohorts. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between medial malleolar fracture and postoperative coronal alignment, medial malleolar width, and prophylactic fixation of the medial malleolus. RESULTS: Mean (SD) medial malleolar width was significantly smaller in the fracture cohort (8.52 mm [1.6]) than in the control group (11.78 mm [1.74]) (P < .001). Mean (SD) tibial component coronal alignment was 92.17 degrees (2.77) in the fracture cohort and 90.21 degrees (1.66) in the control group (P = .002). Regression analysis identified a significant negative association between postoperative medial malleolar width and the probability of fracture (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.26, P < .001). Varus malalignment of the tibial component was positively associated with the probability of fracture (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.27, 2.86, P = .002). Prophylactic screw fixation resulted in more than 90% reduction in the odds of a fracture (OR = 0.04, 95% CI 0.01, 0.45, P = .01). ROC curve analysis determined a medial malleolar width of 10.3 mm as a potential threshold for predicting fracture. CONCLUSION: Decreased medial malleolar width and postoperative varus malalignment were associated with an increased risk of postoperative medial malleolar fracture. Therefore, surgeons should consider prophylactic screw fixation in patients with a medial malleolar width <10.3 mm or at risk of postoperative varus deformity.

Clinical differences between periprosthetic and native distal femur fractures: a comparative observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF) is increasing as the number of total knee replacements becomes more common. This study compared the demographics, fracture characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of periprosthetic versus native distal femur fractures (NDFF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥ 18 who underwent surgical fixation of NDFF or PDFF from 2012 to 2020 at a level-1 trauma center. The main variables collected included demographics, AO/OTA fracture classification, fixation construct, concomitant fractures, polytrauma rates, bone density, and reduction quality. Primary outcomes were unexpected return to the operating room (UROR), hospital length of stay, and quality of reduction. T-tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariate analyses were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 209 patients were identified, including 70 PDFF and 139 NDFF. PDFF patients were elderly females (81%) with isolated (80%) and comminuted (85%) 33 A.3 (71%) fractures. NDFF patients included 53% females, were commonly middle-aged, and displayed comminuted (92%) 33 C.2 fractures. 48% of NDFF patients had concomitant fractures. Intramedullary nailing was the primary fixation for both groups, followed by nail-plate combination (37%) for PDFF and lateral locking plates (21%) for NDFF. NDFF patients experienced significantly longer hospital stays, higher UROR rates, and worse quality of reduction (p < 0.05). PDFF patients had a significantly greater prevalence of low bone density (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PDFF occur as isolated injuries with significant metaphyseal comminution in elderly females with low bone quality. NDFF commonly occurs in younger patients with less metaphyseal comminution and concomitant fractures. Intramedullary nailing was the most common treatment for both groups, although preference for nail-plate combination fixation is increasing. NDFF type 33 C fractures are at greater risk of UROR.

Patients with Osteoporosis Are at Higher Risk for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures and Aseptic Loosening Following Total Hip Arthroplasty.

This report provides an updated analysis for patients with osteoporosis following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The comorbidities of alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease, obesity, and rheumatoid arthritis continue to be significant risk factors for periprosthetic femur fracture (PPFFx) and aseptic loosening in the population with osteoporosis. Patients with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometric (DEXA) scans were at risk for PPFFx regardless of femoral fixation method, and patients with DEXA scans with cementless fixation were at risk of aseptic loosening after THA. The patient population with severe osteoporosis may have higher risks for aseptic loosening and PPFFx than previously recognized.

Total knee arthroplasty and periprosthetic distal femoral fracture: looking beyond the osteoporosis to previous osteoporotic fracture.

Osteoporosis increases the risk of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after TKA, especially in patients with a history of osteoporotic fractures. Therefore, careful assessment and proper treatment of osteoporosis need and the importance of taking osteoporotic medication needs to be recognized by the patients following primary TKA. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis is a risk factor for fractures, including those of the hip, vertebrae, and distal radius; however, the association between osteoporosis and periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not been much investigated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the association of the presence of systemic osteoporosis with periprosthetic fractures after TKA. METHODS: This study included 34 patients with periprosthetic fractures following primary TKA and 106 controls matched for age and sex. Bone mineral density was evaluated at the femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Medical records were reviewed for age; sex; body mass index; smoking; rheumatoid arthritis, endocrine diseases, and cardiovascular diseases; history of glucocorticoid use; medication for osteoporosis; and history of previous osteoporotic fracture. In addition, anterior femoral notching after TKA was evaluated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to determine factors associated with periprosthetic fracture. RESULTS: The prevalence of osteoporosis in the fracture group was higher than that in the control group (61.8% vs. 40.6%, p=0.045). The rate of medication for osteoporosis was significantly low in the fracture group (47.6 % vs 76.7%, p=0.026). History of previous osteoporotic fracture (odds ratio [OR], 9.1; p=0.015) and osteoporosis (OR, 3.6; p=0.013) were significant risk factors for periprosthetic fractures after TKA. Medication for osteoporosis could decrease the risk of periprosthetic fracture (OR 0.3; p=0.020). CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis is a major risk factor for periprosthetic distal femoral fractures after TKA. Therefore, careful assessment and proper treatment of osteoporosis need and the importance of taking osteoporotic medication needs to be recognized to the patients following primary TKA, especially in patients with a history of osteoporotic fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Collared Cementless Femoral Components Reduce the Revision Rates in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Direct Anterior Approach: An Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of periprosthetic fracture and aseptic loosening is reported when the direct anterior approach (DAA) is used for total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially with cementless implants. We assessed the rate of revision comparing collared and collarless femoral stems when using the DAA for THA. METHODS: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry for primary THA for osteoarthritis inserted with the DAA between January 2015 and December 2022. There were 48,567 THAs that used the DAA (26,690 collarless cementless, 10,161 collared cementless, and 11,716 cemented). Cumulative percent revision was calculated for all-cause revision, revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures, and aseptic femoral stem loosening. Cox proportional hazard ratios [HRs] were used to compare the revision of collared and collarless cementless stems. We also compared collared cementless stems and cemented stems. RESULTS: A higher rate of all-cause revision within 3 months of surgery was observed with collarless compared to collared cementless implants (HR: 1.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56 to 2.54]; P < .001). Similarly, collarless cementless implants were associated with a greater rate of revision for fracture in the first 6 months (HR: 2.90 [95% CI, 1.89 to 4.45]; P < .001) and after 6 months (HR 10.04 [95% CI 1.38 to 73.21]; P = .02), as well as an increased rate of revision for aseptic loosening after 2 years (HR: 5.76 [95% CI, 1.81 to 18.28], P = .003). Collared cementless and cemented stems performed similarly. CONCLUSION: Collared stems were associated with a reduced rate of all-cause revision for cementless THA performed via the DAA. The reduction in risk may be due to protection from periprosthetic femoral fracture and aseptic loosening.

Ipsilateral pubic ramus fracture during total hip arthroplasty is not rare: does it matter?

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been well described and studied. However, there is a lack of reports on ipsilateral pubic ramus fractures during THA due to the rare occurrence of such fractures and ambiguity of symptoms. With the use of postoperative computed tomography (CT) examinations, we have identified that asymptomatic ipsilateral pubic ramus fractures occur frequently during THA. This study aims to evaluate the incidence, location, clinical outcomes, and risk factors of ipsilateral pubic ramus fractures during THA. METHODS: From May 2022 to March 2023, a single surgeon performed 203 THAs in 183 patients at a single institution. All patients underwent postoperative CT scans three days after THA. The patients with ipsilateral pubic ramus fractures were followed up for a minimum of six months. Basic demographics, osteoporosis, general conditions of the operations, and outcomes of THA were investigated in all patients. RESULTS: Twenty-two cases (10.8%) of ipsilateral pubic ramus fractures were identified on postoperative CT scans. All fractures were located near the origin of the superior or inferior pubic ramus. Five fractures were detected on simple postoperative radiographs. The fractures did not cause any further complications at a minimum of six-month postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analyses did not identify any risk factors associated with these fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of ipsilateral pubic ramus fractures during THA is high, treatment is not required as they do not cause any significant clinical symptoms or affect the prognosis of THA. However, the possibility of occurrence of these fractures must be explained to the patients before surgery.