PURPOSE OF STUDY. Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty is a potentially serious and challenging complication and the incidence is continuously rising. The purpose of this study was to analyse the prevalence and analyse effectiveness of the various treatment methods for management of periprosthetic fracture of the distal femur after total knee arthroplasty, and to determine the clinical and radiographic results of patients following surgical treatment of these injuries. METHODS. We reviewed all patients with periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty treated surgically between 2003 and 2008 from the prospective hospital database. Medical and radiographic records were reviewed for patient characteristics, fracture characteristics, implant details, healing, and complications. Antero-posterior and lateral radiographs were reviewed at the time of admission, post-operatively and at follow up visits. Fractures were classified according to the Lewis and Rorabeck, Orthopaedic Trauma Association and the methods of Su and DeWal. RESULTS. 26 patients (average age= 77.6) had operative management for displaced fractures. Mechanical fall was the commonest mode of injury at a mean of 4.66 years post primary replacement. Locking plates was the commonest method of fixation for stable implant and displaced fractures [Lewis & Rorabeck type 2] and 2 patients had distal femoral replacements for unstable implants. Successful fracture healing within 6 months occurred in all but one patient. Full weight bearing mobilisation was achieved at 3 months in 94% and patients with distal femoral replacements achieved quickest recovery. CONCLUSIONS. Compared to the current literature, we had a satisfactory outcome in following individualised treatment of periprosthetic fractures after knee joint replacement. Periprosthetic femoral fractures around the knee commonly constitute a challenging problem and require an adequate analysis of fracture etiology and distal femoral replacement achieves satisfactory results in fractures with unstable implants

It is unclear whether there is a limit to the amount of distal bone required to support fixation of supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fractures. This retrospective multicentre study evaluated lateral locked plating of periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures and compared the results according to extension of the fracture distal with the proximal border of the femoral prosthetic component.

Between 1999 and 2008, 89 patients underwent lateral locked plating of a supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fracture, of whom 61 patients with a mean age of 72 years (42 to 96) comprising 53 women, were available after a minimum follow-up of six months or until fracture healing. Patients were grouped into those with fractures located proximally (28) and those with fractures that extended distal to the proximal border of the femoral component (33).

Delayed healing and nonunion occurred respectively in five (18%) and three (11%) of more proximal fractures, and in two (6%) and five (15%) of the fractures with distal extension (p = 0.23 for delayed healing; p = 0.72 for nonunion, Fisher’s exact test). Four construct failures (14%) occurred in more proximal fractures, and three (9%) in fractures with distal extension (p = 0.51). Of the two deep infections that occurred in each group, one resolved after surgical debridement and antibiotics, and one progressed to a nonunion.

Extreme distal periprosthetic supracondylar fractures of the femur are not a contra-indication to lateral locked plating. These fractures can be managed with internal fixation, with predictable results, similar to those seen in more proximal fractures.