Aims

Femoral periprosthetic fractures are rising in incidence. Their management is complex and carries a high associated mortality. Unlike native hip fractures, there are no guidelines advising on time to theatre in this group. We aim to determine whether delaying surgical intervention influences morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures.

We describe 261 peripheral nerve injuries sustained in war by 100 consecutive service men and women injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their mean age was 26.5 years (18.1 to 42.6), the median interval between injury and first review was 4.2 months (mean 8.4 months (0.36 to 48.49)) and median follow-up was 28.4 months (mean 20.5 months (1.3 to 64.2)). The nerve lesions were predominantly focal prolonged conduction block/neurapraxia in 116 (45%), axonotmesis in 92 (35%) and neurotmesis in 53 (20%) and were evenly distributed between the upper and the lower limbs. Explosions accounted for 164 (63%): 213 (82%) nerve injuries were associated with open wounds. Two or more main nerves were injured in 70 patients. The ulnar, common peroneal and tibial nerves were most commonly injured. In 69 patients there was a vascular injury, fracture, or both at the level of the nerve lesion. Major tissue loss was present in 50 patients: amputation of at least one limb was needed in 18. A total of 36 patients continued in severe neuropathic pain.

This paper outlines the methods used in the assessment of these injuries and provides information about the depth and distribution of the nerve lesions, their associated injuries and neuropathic pain syndromes.

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.