Skip to main content
Log in

Conclusions

  • Femoral Shaft Fractures After Arthroplasty
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objectives of this retrospective multicentric study were to define the predisposing factors and methods of treatment. The common predisposing factor is the femoral fragilization due to loss of “bone stock” (secondary to osteopathies or tumor, or especially prosthetic loosening). More specific factors are iatrogenic. For intraoperative fractures we found reoperation, excessive mobilisation of the femur and excessive diaphyseal reaming. For postoperative fractures we found coticotomy and screw hole distal from the tip of the stem, or a gap between another implant wich induced a gradient of elasticity. The therapeutic indications follow the Johansson classification:

Type I fractures: If the stability of the prothesis is good: - with a transverse fracture line: functional treatment (off-loading for 45 to 60 days), - with a spiral fracture line: internal fixation using a rigid plate or cerclage wire. If prosthesis loose:- revision arthroplasty with a long stem prothesis is the ideal, - if the general status is too poor, orthopaedic treatment is indicated.

Type II fractures: If good stability of the prothesis: internal fixation using a rigid plate. Bone grafting is not necessary. If prosthesis loose: revision arthroplasty with long stem prothesis

Type III fractures: Altought the ideal seems revision arthroplasty using long stem prothesis, we think that internal fixation by plate with perfect operative technique is indicated for these old and vulnerable patients. Considering the therapeutic indications we suggest a modification of the Johansson’s classification:

Type I fracture: - Ia: stability of the prothesis, - Ib: loosening prothesis.

Type II fracture: - IIa: stability of the prothesis, - IIb: loosening prothesis.

Type III fracture: - IIIa: proximal fracture, - IIIb : distal fracture.

Résumé

Les facteurs favorisants des fractures du fémur porteur d’une prothèse de hanche sont représentés par les pathologies fragilisantes de l’os et en particulier par la diminution du stock osseux provoquée par les descellements. Des facteurs iatrogènes sont également retrouvés. Les indications thérapeutiques sont gouvernées par le caractère stable ou instable de l’implant. Si la prothèse reste stable l’ostéosynthèse est le plus souvent indiquée, dans le cas contraire l’utilisation d’un implant dont la queue ponte le foyer est recommandée. Une modification de la classification de Johansson est proposée pour tenir compte de ces indications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliographie

  1. Ali Khan MA, O’Driscoll M (1977) Fractures of the femur during total hip replacement and their management. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 59-B: 36–41

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bethea JS III, De Andrade JR, Fleming LLL, Lindenbaum SD, Welch RB (1982) Proximal femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 170: 95–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooke PM, Newman JM (1988) Fractures of the femur in relation to cemented hip protheses. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 70-B: 386–389

    Google Scholar 

  4. Courpied JP, Watin-Augouard L, Postel M (1987) Fractures du fémur chez les sujets porteurs de prothèses totales de hanche ou du genou. Int Orthop 11: 109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. De Beer J de V, Learmonth ID (1991) “Pathological” fracture of the femur — a complication of failed total hip arthroplasty. SAMJ 79: 202–205

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fredin HO, Lindberg H, Carlsson AS (1987) Femoral fracture following hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 58: 20–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Johansson JE, McBroom R, Barrington TW, Hunter GA (1981) Fracture of the ipsilateral femur in patients with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 63-A: 1435–1442

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mallory TH, Klaus TJ, Vaughn BK (1989) Intra-operative femoral fractures associated with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 12: 213–239

    Google Scholar 

  9. Olerud S, Karlstrom G (1984) Hip arthroplasty with an extended femoral stem for salvage procedures. Clin Orthop 191: 64–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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-A, 241–248

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz JT, Mayer JG, Engh CA (1989) Femoral fracture during non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 71-A: 1135–1142

    Google Scholar 

  12. Serocki JH (1992) Treatment of fractures about hip protheses with compression plating. J Arthroplasty 7: 129–135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Scharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Booth RE, Rothman RH (1992) Intraoperative femoral fractures in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Rev 21: 337–342

    Google Scholar 

  14. Steen Jensen J, Repten J (1987) Failures with the Judet non cemented total hip. Acta Orthop Scand 58: 23–26

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stern RE (1991) Management of ipsilateral femoral shaft fractures following hip arthroplastiy. Orthop Rev 20: 779–784

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor MM, Meyers MH, Harvey JP (1978) Intraoperative femur fracture during total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 137: 96–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Elegem P, Blaimont P (1979) Les fractures fémorales et cotyloïdiennes sur prothèses de la hanche. Acta Orthop Belgica 45: 299–309

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vichard P (1988) Problèmes posés par les fractures du fémur porteur d’une prothèse de hanche. Lyon Chir 84: 225–229

    Google Scholar 

  19. Whittaker PP, Sotos LN, Ralston EL (1974) Fractures of the femur about femoral endoprostheses. J Trauma 14: 675–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Présenté à la 38ème Réunion S.O.T.EST à Lons-le-Saunier du 17 au 18 juin 1994

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gagneux, E., Jeunet, L. & Vichard, P. Conclusions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 5, 194–196 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02716511

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02716511

Key words

Mots-clés

Code Méary

Navigation