The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case.Aims
Methods
Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment. This was a retrospective case control study of consecutive patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures between 2007 and 2017. Two observers identified 16 PAFF cases (mean age 73.9 years (44 to 88), 14 female patients) and 17 typical periprosthetic fractures in patients on bisphosphonate therapy as controls (mean age 80.7 years (60 to 86, 13 female patients). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of PAFF. Management and complications were recorded.Aims
Patients and Methods
Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions. There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection. The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants. We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.
