Atypical periprosthetic femoral fractures after arthroplasty for fracture are at high risk of complications

Abstract It is difficult to investigate clinical features in a single-center study because atypical periprosthetic femoral fracture (APFF) is rare. This study aims to perform a nationwide survey of APFF to investigate the characteristics of this fracture and compare the clinical outcome with that of...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tomonori Baba, Masataka Uchino, Hironori Ochi, Takuya Ikuta, Yoshitomo Saita, Hiroshi Hagino, Hiroaki Nonomiya, Seiya Jingushi, Takayuki Nakajima, Yasuhisa Ueda, Kaneko Kazuo
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/133eef44bd10400c8838e82c01c10613
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Abstract It is difficult to investigate clinical features in a single-center study because atypical periprosthetic femoral fracture (APFF) is rare. This study aims to perform a nationwide survey of APFF to investigate the characteristics of this fracture and compare the clinical outcome with that of typical periprosthetic femoral fracture (typical PFF). A nationwide survey was performed asking for cooperation from 183 councilors of the Japanese Society for Fracture Repair. The subjects were patients with APFF injured between 2008 and 2017. The control group was comprised of patients with typical PFF of our facility injured in the same period. A total of 43 patients met the APFF definition. The control group was comprised of 75 patients with typical PFF. The rate of bisphosphonate use was significantly higher in the APFFs group than in the typical PFF group (62.8% and 32%, p < 0.02). The rate of cemented stem was significantly higher in the APFFs group than in the typical PFF group (30.2% and 6.7%, p < 0.001). In the patients with arthroplasty for hip fracture, multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that APFF was an independent risk factor of complications following the initial management (Odds ratio 11.1, 95% confidence interval 1.05–117.2, p = 0.045). However, no significant association between PFF and APFF was observed in the patients with arthroplasty for other hip diseases. The risk of complications was higher in the APFF group than in the typical PFF group in the patients with arthroplasty for fracture. When AFPP after arthroplasty for the fracture is suspected, it may be necessary to add not only internal fixation with a normal plate but also some additional treatment.