Scientific Articles   |    
Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Following Total Hip Arthroplasty with Femoral Component Revision
Bryan D. Springer, MD1; Daniel J. Berry, MD1; David G. Lewallen, MD1
1 Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail address for D.J. Berry: berry.daniel@mayo.edu
View Disclosures and Other Information
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. One or more of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (DePuy/Johnson and Johnson; Implex; Zimmer). In addition, a commercial entity (DePuy/Johnson and Johnson; Implex; Zimmer) paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2003 Nov 01;85(11):2156-2162
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty is indicated for most periprosthetic fractures that occur around the stem of the femoral implant. The purpose of the present study was to assess the results and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Methods: We evaluated 118 hips in 116 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty because of an acute Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fracture. The femoral implant used for the revision was a cemented stem in forty-two hips, a proximally porous-coated uncemented stem in twenty-eight, an extensively porous-coated stem in thirty, and an allograft-prosthesis composite or tumor prosthesis in eighteen. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.4 years.

Results: Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the probability of survival was 90% at five years and 79.2% at ten years with revision or removal of the femoral implant for any reason as the end point. Sixteen femoral components were rerevised: ten were rerevised because of loosening; three, because of loosening in association with a fracture nonunion; two, because of recurrent dislocation; and one, because of a new periprosthetic fracture. Additionally, six femoral implants were resected because of deep infection (five) or prosthetic loosening (one). Radiographs of the ninety-six hips with a surviving implant showed that twenty-one had evidence of loosening of the femoral implant, four had a nonunion of the femoral fracture, and two had both a nonunion and loosening of the femoral implant.

Conclusions: Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture around the stem of the femoral implant successfully restored function for most patients. The greatest long-term problems were prosthetic loosening and fracture nonunion. Better results were seen when an uncemented, extensively porous-coated stem was used.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level IV (case series [no, or historical, control group]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Treatment of pediatric diaphyseal femur fractures. -American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)
    Results provided by:
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    California - Mercy Medical Group
    California - UCLA/OH Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System