Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 9/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Paper

New fracture pattern focusing on implant fracture for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Authors: Jie-Feng Huang, Jian-Jian Shen, Jun-Jie Chen, Yang Zheng, Wen-Xi Du, Fu-Cun Liu, Pei-Jian Tong

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The Vancouver Classification System (VCS) for assessing periprosthetic femoral fractures has become universally accepted. The Unified Classification System (UCS) has expanded upon and updated the VCS and applied treatment principles to all periprosthetic fractures. However, periprosthetic femoral fractures accompanied by stem fracture after hip arthroplasty were not classifiable under the original VCS or the UCS.

Results

Our new fracture pattern is based on the periprosthetic femoral fracture as well as stem fracture after hip arthroplasty, and its treatment is dependent upon the stability of the proximal portion of the fractured femoral prosthesis.

Conclusion

We believe that our new fracture pattern, a supplement to the VCS and UCS, is useful in the establishment of a therapeutic strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures.
Literature
1.
Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The unified classification system (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 96-B:713–716CrossRefPubMed
2.
Vioreanu MH, Parry MC, Haddad FS, Duncan CP (2014) Field testing the unified classification system for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur around a total hip replacement: an international collaboration. Bone Joint J 96-B:1472–1477CrossRefPubMed
3.
Naqvi GA, Baig SA, Awan N (2012) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification system of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1047–1050CrossRefPubMed
4.
Corten K, Vanrykel F, Bellemans J, Frederix PR, Simon JP, Broos PL (2009) An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91:1424–1430CrossRef
5.
Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G (2005) Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 20:857–865CrossRefPubMed
6.
Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP (2000) The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty 15:59–62CrossRefPubMed
7.
Baba T, Homma Y, Momomura R, Kobayashi H, Matsumoto M, Futamura K, Mogami A, Kanda A, Morohashi I, Kaneko K (2014) New classification focusing on implant designs useful for setting therapeutic strategy for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Int Orthop 39:1–5CrossRefPubMed
8.
Drexler M, Dwyer T, Chakravertty R, Backstein D, Gross AE, Safir O (2014) The outcome of modified extended trochanteric osteotomy in revision THA for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty 29:1598–1604CrossRefPubMed
9.
Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS (2008) European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 90:1576–1579CrossRef
10.
Froberg L, Troelsen A, Brix M (2012) Periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 and C1 fractures treated by locking-plate osteosynthesis. Acta Orthop 83:648–652PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
11.
Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Söderman P (2002) The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(Suppl 2):2–20PubMed
12.
Learmonth ID (2004) The management of periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 86:13–19
13.
Dzaja I, Lyons MC, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, Howard JL (2014) Revision hip arthroplasty using a modular revision hip system in cases of severe bone loss. J Arthroplasty 29:1594–1597CrossRefPubMed
14.
Parrish TF, Jones JR (1964) Fracture of the femur following prosthetic arthroplasty of the hip: report of nine cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:241–248PubMed
15.
Johansson JE, McBroom R, Barrington TW, Hunter GA (1981) Fracture of the ipsilateral femur in patients wih total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63:1435–1442PubMed
16.
Bethea JS 3rd, DeAndrade JR, Fleming LL, Lindenbaum SD, Welch RB (1982) Proximal femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:95–106PubMed
17.
Cooke PH, Newman JH (1988) Fractures of the femur in relation to cemented hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 70:386–389
18.
Jensen JS, Barfod G, Hansen D, Larsen E, Linde F, Menck H, Olsen B (1988) Femoral shaft fracture after hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 59:9–13CrossRefPubMed
19.
Roffman M, Mendes DG (1989) Fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 12:1067–1070PubMed
20.
Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304PubMed
21.
Charnley J (1975) Fracture of femoral prostheses in total hip replacement. A clinical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 111:105–120
22.
Murray P, Rorabeck H (1998) Bilateral femoral component breakage in total hip replacement: a case report. Can J Surg 41:236–238PubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
New fracture pattern focusing on implant fracture for periprosthetic femoral fractures
Authors
Jie-Feng Huang
Jian-Jian Shen
Jun-Jie Chen
Yang Zheng
Wen-Xi Du
Fu-Cun Liu
Pei-Jian Tong
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2830-7

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

International Orthopaedics 9/2015 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The value of bulk femoral head allograft in acetabular reconstruction using Kerboull-type plate

Erratum

Erratum to: Revision surgery after third generation autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee

Original Paper

Higher reliability and validity of Baba classification with computerised tomography imaging and implant information for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Original Paper

Has a patient type with peri-prosthetic femoral fractures evolved?

Original Paper

Acetabuloplasty with bone grafting in uncemented hip replacement for protrusion

Original Paper

Periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical comparison of four methods of fixation