32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 and C fractures treated by locking-plate osteosynthesis : Fracture union and reoperations in 60 consecutive fractures

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 1
      Acta Orthopaedica
      Informa Healthcare

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          Historically, the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) has been associated with a high frequency of complications and reoperations. The preferred treatment is internal fixation, a revision of the femoral stem, or a combination of both. An improved understanding of plate use during internal fixation, and the introduction of locking-plate osteosynthesis may lead to improved outcome. We evaluated the outcome of Vancouver type B1 and C PFFs treated by locking-plate osteosynthesis, by assessing rates of fracture union and reoperations and by analyzing failure cases.

          Patients and methods

          From 2002 through 2011, 58 consecutive patients (60 fractures) with low-energy PFF around or below a stable femoral stem, i.e. Vancouver type B1 and C fractures, underwent osteosynthesis with a locking plate. All patients had a total hip replacement (THR). They were followed up clinically and radiographically, with 6 weeks between visits, until fracture union or until death. Fracture union was evaluated 6 months postoperatively.

          Results

          At a median follow-up time of 23 (0–121) months after PFF, 8 patients (8 fractures) had been reoperated due either to infection (n = 4), failure of fixation (n = 3), or loosening of the femoral stem (n = 1). All the patients who had been followed up for at least 6 months—and who did not undergo reoperation or die—went on to fracture union (n = 43).

          Interpretation

          Locking-plate osteosynthesis of periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 and C fractures gives good results regarding fracture union. It appears that spanning of the prosthesis to avoid stress-rising areas is important for successful treatment. Infection is the major cause of failure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fractures of the femur after hip replacement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Epidemiology: hip and knee.

            D. Berry (1999)
            This article reviews the epidemiologic features of periprosthetic fractures around total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty according to the site of fracture occurrence. The frequency and cause of intraoperative and postoperative periprosthetic fractures vary by anatomic site. For each anatomic site, unique risk factors, some demographic and some technical, appear to be related to risk of fracture. For several anatomic sites, excellent articles that collate large numbers of series are available to the reader to provide aggregate information concerning the epidemiology of these fractures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement.

              This study assessed the reliability and validity of a new classification system for fractures of the femur after hip arthroplasty. Forty radiographs were evaluated by 6 observers, 3 experts and 3 nonexperts. Each observer read the radiographs on 2 separate occasions and classified each case as to its type (A, B, C) and subtype (B1, B2, B3). Reliability was assessed by looking at the intraobserver and interobserver agreement using the kappa statistic. Validity was assessed within the B group by looking at the agreement between the radiographic classification and the intraoperative findings. Our findings suggest that this classification system is reliable and valid. Intraobserver agreement was consistent across observers, ranging from 0.73 to 0.83. There was a negligible difference between experts and nonexperts. Interobserver agreement was 0.61 for the first reading and 0.64 for the second reading by kappa analysis, indicating substantial agreement between observers. Validity analysis revealed an observed agreement kappa value of 0.78, indicating substantial agreement. This study has shown that this classification is reliable and valid.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Orthop
                Acta Orthop
                ORT
                Acta Orthopaedica
                Informa Healthcare
                1745-3674
                1745-3682
                December 2012
                26 November 2012
                : 83
                : 6
                : 648-652
                Affiliations
                1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology , Odense University Hospital, Odense
                2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Hvidovre University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
                Author notes
                Article
                ORT_A_747925_O
                10.3109/17453674.2012.747925
                3555447
                23140109
                247f0593-baa0-4b9f-9c7f-7c6ebe6d74a8
                Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.

                History
                : 25 April 2012
                : 25 September 2012
                Categories
                Fracture

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content739

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors129