Aims. Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are devastating complications that are associated with functional limitations and increased overall mortality. Although cementless implants have been associated with an increased risk of PFF, the precise contribution of implant geometry and design on the risk of both intra-operative and post-operative PFF remains poorly investigated. A systematic review was performed to aggregate all of the PFF literature with specific attention to the femoral implant used. Patients and Methods. A systematic search strategy of several journal databases and recent proceedings from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons was performed. Clinical articles were included for analysis if sufficient implant description was provided. All articles were reviewed by two reviewers. A review of fundamental investigations of implant load-to-failure was performed, with the intent of identifying similar conclusions from the clinical and fundamental literature. Results. In total 596 articles were initially identified, with 34 being eligible for analysis. Aggregate analysis of 1691 PFFs in 342 719 primary THAs revealed a significantly higher number of PFFs with cementless femoral implants (p < 0.001). Single-wedge and double-wedge (fit-and-fill) femoral implants were associated with a threefold increase in PFF rates (p < 0.001) compared with anatomical, fully coated and tapered/rounded stems. Within cemented stems, loaded-taper (Exeter) stems were associated with more PFFs than composite-beam (Charnley) stems (p = 0.004). Review of the fundamental literature revealed very few studies comparing cementless component designs. Conclusion. Very few studies within the PFF literature provide detailed implant information. Cementless implants, specifically those of single-wedge and double-wedge, have the highest PFF rates in the literature, with most investigations recommending against their use in older patients with osteoporotic bone. This review illustrates the need for registries and future PFF studies to record implant name and information for future analysis. Furthermore, future biomechanical investigations comparing modern implants are needed to clarify the precise contribution of implant design to PFF risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):50–9

Aims. Osseointegrated prosthetic limbs allow better mobility than socket-mounted prosthetics for lower limb amputees. Fractures, however, can occur in the residual limb, but they have rarely been reported. Approximately 2% to 3% of amputees with socket-mounted prostheses may fracture within five years. This is the first study which directly addresses the risks and management of periprosthetic osseointegration fractures in amputees. Methods. A retrospective review identified 518 osseointegration procedures which were undertaken in 458 patients between 2010 and 2018 for whom complete medical records were available. Potential risk factors including time since amputation, age at osseointegration, bone density, weight, uni/bilateral implantation and sex were evaluated with multiple logistic regression. The mechanism of injury, technique and implant that was used for fixation of the fracture, pre-osseointegration and post fracture mobility (assessed using the K-level) and the time that the prosthesis was worn for in hours/day were also assessed. Results. There were 22 periprosthetic fractures; they occurred exclusively in the femur: two in the femoral neck, 14 intertrochanteric and six subtrochanteric, representing 4.2% of 518 osseointegration operations and 6.3% of 347 femoral implants. The vast majority (19/22, 86.4%) occurred within 2 cm of the proximal tip of the implant and after a fall. No fractures occurred spontaneously. Fixation most commonly involved dynamic hip screws (10) and reconstruction plates (9). No osseointegration implants required removal, the K-level was not reduced after fixation of the fracture in any patient, and all retained a K-level of ≥ 2. All fractures united, 21 out of 22 patients (95.5%) wear their osseointegration-mounted prosthetic limb longer daily than when using a socket, with 18 out of 22 (81.8%) reporting using it for ≥ 16 hours daily. Regression analysis identified a 3.89-fold increased risk of fracture for females (p = 0.007) and a 1.02-fold increased risk of fracture per kg above a mean of 80.4 kg (p = 0.046). No increased risk was identified for bilateral implants (p = 0.083), time from amputation to osseointegration (p = 0.974), age at osseointegration (p = 0.331), or bone density (g/cm2, p = 0.560; T-score, p = 0.247; Z-score, p = 0.312). Conclusion. The risks and sequelae of periprosthetic fracture after press-fit osseointegration for amputation should not deter patients or clinicians from considering this procedure. Females and heavier patients are likely to have an increased risk of fracture. Age, years since amputation, and bone density do not appear influential. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):162–169

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the demographic details of patients who sustain a femoral periprosthetic fracture (PPF), the epidemiology of PPFs, PPF characteristics, and the predictors of PPF types in the UK population.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe implant and patient-reported outcome in patients with a unilateral transfemoral amputation (TFA) treated with a bone-anchored, transcutaneous prosthesis.

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

Aims

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.

Aims

This study describes and compares the operative management and outcomes in a consecutive case series of patients with dislocated hemiarthroplasties of the hip, and compares outcomes with those of patients not sustaining a dislocation.