Advertisement

LO SCALPELLO-OTODI Educational

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 35–38 | Cite as

Trattamento delle fratture periprotesiche dell’anca: sintesi vs revisione

  • Alessandro Colombi
  • Claudio Carlo Castelli
Aggiornamenti

Periprosthetic hip fracture: ORIF vs revision surgery

Abstract

Femoral periprosthetic fractures in hip surgery still represent a difficult surgical procedure and a secure optimal treatment has not been found yet. Great help is provided by the development of commonly used classifications such as the Vancouver classification and the recent Unified Classification System (UCS), which introduce clearer fracture patterns with the respective surgical indications. The most discussed pattern is related to category B of both classifications in which, despite the use of established treatment paradigms, results are poor or otherwise unpredictable. This study reviews the literature related to the analysis of fractures and its following treatment.

Notes

Conflitto d’interesse

Gli autori Claudio Carlo Castelli e Alessandro Colombi dichiarano di non aver alcun conflitto d’interesse.

Consenso informato e conformità agli standard etici

Tutte le procedure descritte nello studio e che hanno coinvolto esseri umani sono state attuate in conformità alle norme etiche stabilite dalla dichiarazione di Helsinki del 1975 e successive modifiche. Il consenso informato è stato ottenuto da tutti i pazienti inclusi nello studio.

Human and animal rights

Per questo tipo di studio non è richiesto l’inserimento di alcuna dichiarazione relativa agli studi effettuati su esseri umani e animali.

Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    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(1):59–62 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 96-B:713–716 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleischman AN, Chen AF (2015) Periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem: overcoming challenges and avoiding pitfall. Ann Trasl Med 3(16):234 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdel MP, Watts CD, Houdek MT et al. (2016) Epidemiology of periprosthetic fractures of the femur in 32644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J 98-B(4):461–467 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:80–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abdel MP, Houdek MT, Watts CD et al. (2016) Epidemiology of periprosthetic femoral fractures in 5417 revision total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J 98-B(4):468–474 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beals RK, Tower SS (1996) Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 327:238–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marshall RA, Weaver MJ, Sodickson A, Khurana B (2017) Periprosthetic femoral fractures in the emergency department: what the orthopedic surgeon wants to know. Radiographics 37(4):1202–1217 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solarino G, Vicenti G, Moretti L et al. (2014) Interprosthetic femoral fractures—a challenge of treatment. A systematic review of the literature. Injury 45(2):362–368 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana Ortopedici Traumatologi Ospedalieri d’Italia 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S.C. Ortopedia e TraumatologiaAzienda Ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIIIBergamoItalia

Personalised recommendations