Current Reconstruction Options in Periprosthetic Fractures Around the Knee.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 7. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2016;83(6):381-387. Long-Term Function following Periprosthetic Fractures. [Article in English] Zwingmann J, Krieg M, Thielemann F, Südkamp N, Helwig P. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Clinical results of long-term follow-up after traumatic periprosthetic femur fractures and different therapies (ORIF vs. revision arthroplasty) MATERIAL AND METHODS The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Harris-Hip-Score (HHS), Oxford-Hip-Score (OHS), Oxford-Knee-Score (OKS), Knee-Society-Score (KSS), SF-36 Questionnaire and Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (FFH) were used to evaluate outcome and functionality. Radiological examinations were performed and the Vancouver (THA) and Lewis and Rorabeck (TKA) classifications used. RESULTS 70 patients suffered a periprosthetic hip fracture (29× revision prosthesis, 41x ORIF), 23 patients underwent an ORIF due to periprosthetic fracture of a TKA (total mean age 75.2 years). 47 patients (follow-up rate 51%) were examined 40 months after surgery (mean age 72 years) (THA: 16× revision, 23× ORIF, TKA: 8× ORIF). The VAS revealed significant less pain in the group that had undergone revision hip arthroplasty than in the ORIF group: 3.9±1 vs. 5.1±1.7 (p