Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management.

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

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 11. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 May;106(3):449-458. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.01.008. Epub 2020 Mar 14. Management and results in periprosthetic tibial fracture after total knee arthroplasty: Two-center 15-case retrospective series at 2 years' follow-up. Bauer C(1), Zaharia B(2), Galliot F(2), Parot J(2), Houfani F(2), Mayer J(3), Mainard D(2). Author information: (1)Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, COTA, hôpital Central, CHRU de Nancy, 29, avenue du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France. Electronic address: camille.bauer57@gmail.com. (2)Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, COTA, hôpital Central, CHRU de Nancy, 29, avenue du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny, 54000 Nancy, France. (3)Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, hôpital de Mercy, CHR de Metz-Thionville, 1, allée du Château, 57245 Ars-Laquenexy, France. INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic tibial fracture after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rare, but jeopardizes implant survival. The main objective of the present study was to assess treatment efficacy, on the hypothesis that surgery provides good long-term results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A two-center retrospective study included 15 patients (6 male, 9 female: mean age, 71.8±10.2 years), managed between 1997 and 2017 for isolated tibial fracture after TKA. Patients were assessed clinically (IKS, inverted Oxford, Parker and SF-12 scores) and radiologically. Complications and revision surgeries were collated. Fractures were classified on the SoFCOT classification: 9 stable implants (4 type B1, 5 type C1), 4 periprosthetic osteolyses (1 type A3, 2 type B3, 1 type C3), and 2 loosenings (type A2). Treatments comprised: non-operative treatment (1 bed-ridden patient), 11 osteosyntheses for fracture on stable implant (2 standard plates, 7 locking plates, 2 intramedullary nailings), and 3 implant replacements by cemented long stem models for loosening. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 28 months (range, 12-120 months). Consolidation was achieved in 13 cases, at a mean 15 weeks. Complications comprised: 4 infections, 2 cases of secondary displacement, and 2 of non-union. Surgical revision was required in 8 cases, including 2 secondary implant revision procedures. Functional results were good in 10 cases. At last follow-up, mean Parker score was 7 (range, 4-8.5), Oxford score 32 (range, 16-39), and IKS score 150 (range, 85-167) with knee and function scores respectively 78 (range, 55-86) and 75 (range, 30-85). CONCLUSION: Radiologic and clinical results were encouraging, but with impaired quality of life and a high rate of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective cohort study. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.01.008