TREATMENT OF PERIPROSTHETIC FEMORAL FRACTURES WITH SELF-DYNAMISABLE INTERNAL FIXATOR

Femoral fractures, after hip arthroplasty (Periprosthetic fractures), may impose an immense problem in the treatment and recovery of such patients. The treatment is very difficult because there is not any universal treatment method. In the present study, the patients with femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty are presented, treated at the Clinic of Orthopedics of the Clinical Center Nis. Vancouver Classification System was used. The fractures have been fixed by cerclage wire, Muller's plates and Mitkovic's selfdynamizing Internal Fixator. The authors present 37 patients with femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty. The average age is 67.3 years (26 women, 11 men). Type A fracture was found in 8 patients, type B in 23 patients, and type C in 6 patients. The femoral fracture occurred during the period from 2 months up to 4 years after the primary arthroplasty. Patients were followed 1 – 5 years after the surgery. All patients were mobile early and able to walk with crutches. The signs of fracture consolidation and healing appeared 3 – 5 months after the operation. In 5 cases there was no fracture consolidation up to 4 years. There were no mechanical complications. Periprosthetic femoral fractures are considered severe complications, particularly among the elderly. Mitkovic's dynamisable Internal Fixator represents an implant which enables fixation of all types of periprosthetic fractures, without impairing periosteal vascularisation, the fixation being at the same time less invasive compared to other implants. In addition, the implant enables dynamic fixation of a fracture, which reduces the risk of mechanical complications related to fixation. Acta Medica Medianae 2017;56(3):31-37.

[1]  T. Vail,et al.  Periprosthetic Fractures: A Common Problem with a Disproportionately High Impact on Healthcare Resources. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  G. Lewis,et al.  Tangential Bicortical Locked Fixation Improves Stability in Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Biomechanical Study , 2015, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[3]  James P. Waddell,et al.  Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review , 2015, International Orthopaedics.

[4]  S. Marya,et al.  Management of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures by distal femoral locking plate: A retrospective study. , 2015, Indian journal of orthopaedics.

[5]  M. Faschingbauer,et al.  Mechanical complications with one hundred and thirty eight (antibiotic-laden) cement spacers in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty , 2015, International Orthopaedics.

[6]  S. Milenkovic,et al.  [Dynamic internal fixation of the periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip arthroplasty]. , 2004, Acta chirurgica Iugoslavica.

[7]  D. Berry,et al.  Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Around Well-Fixed Implants: Use of Cortical Onlay Allografts with or without a Plate , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  M A Mont,et al.  Fractures of the ipsilateral femur after hip arthroplasty. A statistical analysis of outcome based on 487 patients. , 1994, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  E. Chao,et al.  Bypassing femoral cortical defects with cemented intramedullary stems , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  M. B. Coventry,et al.  Femoral and pelvic fractures after total hip arthroplasty. , 1974, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  I. Horwitz,et al.  Artificial hip prosthesis in acute and nonunion fractures of the femoral neck: follow-up study of seventy cases. , 1954, Journal of the American Medical Association.