Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156(03): 287-297
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-123831
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Adverse Events in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Fractures Around the Knee – a Clinical and Radiological Outcome Analysis

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Anna Janine Schreiner
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Christoph Gonser
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Christoph Ihle
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Max Konstantin Zauleck
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Tim Klopfer
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Fabian Stuby
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Ulrich Stöckle
1   Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinik Tübingen, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
,
Björn Gunnar Ochs
2   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 January 2018 (online)

Abstract

Background The incidence of periprosthetic fractures associated with total knee arthroplasty (PpFxK) has been reported to be 0.3 – 5.5%. 40% of all cases are related to revision TKA. The most common localisation is the distal femur. Classification is performed according to Rorabeck (RB). RB I – II fractures are usually treated with locked plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing, whereas RB III fractures are an indication for revision arthroplasty using a hinged endoprosthesis. PpFxK of the patella can be classified according to Goldberg and PpFxK of the proximal tibia can be grouped as in Felix. Interprosthetic fractures can be regarded as a special type of PpFx. Due to the increasing numbers of TKA being performed, increasing numbers of adverse events in arthroplasty can be expected. Adverse events in the treatment of PpFxK occur in up to 41% of patients according to the literature and revision is needed in approximately 29% of all cases. Risk factors are age, osteoporosis, infection, malalignment, osteolysis/loosening of the implant and status post revision.

Patients A clinical and radiographic follow-up was performed with 50 patients (14 men, 36 women) treated for PpFxK of the femur, tibia and patella between 2011 and 2015 at the department of arthroplasty at a level 1 trauma center in Europe.

Results The follow-up of all patients was 68%, with an average of 19.1 ± 14.6 (1 – 49) months between PpFxK and clinical follow-up. 16% of the patients were allocated for further treatment or revision surgery from other hospitals. The patientsʼ median age was 78.0 ± 8.8 (55 – 94) years. Most patients were affected by several orthopaedic and internal medical comorbidities. PpFxK classified as RB II were the most common fractures (60%, n = 30). PpFxK usually occurred 5.0 ± 4.8 (0 – 20) years after index TKA (primary or revision TKA), mostly in patients with CR-retaining endoprosthesis, whereas PpFxK according to Felix occurred significantly earlier and mostly in hinged TKAs. Patients achieved on average a mean Oxford Knee Score of 31.1 ± 9.9 (14 – 46) points. The functional Knee Society Score (KSS) was 52.6 ± 24.4 (20 – 100) and the mean KSS was 58.7 ± 26.8 (0 – 99) points (n = 25). Radiographic evaluation of the RB I – II patients showed frontal and sagittal malalignment in 20.6% of all cases after reduction and plate fixation. The overall rate of surgical adverse events was 50%; 44% of all RB patients needed revision surgery. Adverse events comprised non-union, failure of osteosynthesis, infection, wound healing disorders and re-fractures in the RB II and the Felix subgroup.

Conclusion PpFxK are severe injuries and are associated with a high rate of adverse events related to treatment. Patients often have a complex background and a history of revision surgery or periprosthetic joint infection. The treatment of PpFxK should therefore take place at a centre with expertise in traumatology as well as in revision arthroplasty. Preoperative infection diagnostic testing as well as adequate imaging (X-rays and CT) are essential. We furthermore advise early evaluation of revision arthroplasty, especially in elderly patients suffering from PpFxK with insufficient bone quality around the TKA and closeness between fracture and TKA. In the case of plate fixation, it is important to give attention to correct reduction – to prevent non-union, loosening of the implant and failure of the osteosynthesis – as well as to consider double plating.

 
  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Frosch K-H, Madert J. Kniegelenksnahe Frakturen bei Knie-TEP. OP-Journal 2015; 31: 37-44
  • 2 Gruner A, Hockertz T, Reilmann H. Die periprothetische Fraktur – Klassifikation, Management, Therapie. Unfallchirurg 2004; 107: 35-49
  • 3 Diehl P, Burgkart R, Gollwitzer H. Periprothetische Frakturen nach Knietotalendoprothetik. Orthopäde 2006; 35: 961-974
  • 4 Mittlmeier T, Stöckle U, Perka C. et al. Periprothetische Frakturen nach Knietotalendoprothetik. Unfallchirurg 2005; 108: 481-495
  • 5 Della Rocca GJ, Leung KS, Pape HC. Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma 2011; 25 (Suppl. 02) S66-S70
  • 6 Moreta J, Aguirre U, de Ugarte OS. et al. Functional and radiological outcome of periprosthetic femoral fractures after hip arthroplasty. Injury 2015; 46: 292-298
  • 7 Erhardt JB, Kuster M-S. Periprothetische Frakturen am Kniegelenk. Orthopäde 2010; 39: 97-108
  • 8 Parvizi J, Jain N, Schmidt AH. Periprosthetic knee fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2008; 22: 663-671
  • 9 Aaron RK, Scott R. Supracondylar fracture of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (219) 136-139
  • 10 Burnett RS, Bourne RB. Periprosthetic fractures of the tibia and patella in total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2004; 53: 217-235
  • 11 Alden KJ, Duncan WH, Trousdale RT. et al. Intraoperative fracture during primary total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 90-95
  • 12 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Periprosthetic fractures adjacent to total knee implants: treatment and clinical results. Instr Course Lect 1998; 47: 437-448
  • 13 Kenny P, Rice J, Quinlan W. Interprosthetic fracture of the femoral shaft. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13: 361-364
  • 14 Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125: 433-442
  • 15 Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW. Classification of periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 1999; 30: 209-214
  • 16 Felix NA, Stuart MJ, Hanssen AD. Periprosthetic fractures of the tibia associated with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; (345) 113-124
  • 17 Goldberg VM, Figgie 3rd HE, Inglis AE. et al. Patellar fracture type and prognosis in condylar total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (236) 115-122
  • 18 Duncan CP, Haddad FS. The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 713-716
  • 19 McGraw P, Kumar A. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 2010; 11: 135-141
  • 20 Su ET, DeWal H, Di Cesare PE. Periprosthetic femoral fractures above total knee replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12: 12-20
  • 21 Kim KI, Egol KA, Hozack WJ. et al. Periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 167-175
  • 22 Schaser K. Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Osteosynthese. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endoprothetik, Hrsg. AE-Bulletin 2011: Periprothetische Frakturen des Hüft- und Kniegelenkes. 2011: 11-19
  • 23 Ruchholtz S, Tomas J, Gebhard F. et al. Periprosthetic fractures around the knee-the best way of treatment. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2013; 4: 93-102
  • 24 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D. et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 63-69
  • 25 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD. et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
  • 26 Zwingmann J, Krieg M, Thielemann F. et al. Long-term function following periprosthetic fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2016; 83: 381-387
  • 27 Matlovich NF, Lanting BA, Vasarhelyi EM. et al. Outcomes of surgical management of supracondylar periprosthetic femur fractures. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 189-192
  • 28 Fuchs M, Perka C, von Roth P. [Periprosthetic fractures following total hip and knee arthroplasty: Risk factors, epidemiological aspects, diagnostics and classification systems]. Unfallchirurg 2016; 119: 185-193
  • 29 Welch T, Iorio R, Marcantonio AJ. et al. Incidence of distal femoral periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2016; 74: 287-292
  • 30 Meneghini RM, Keyes BJ, Reddy KK. et al. Modern retrograde intramedullary nails versus periarticular locked plates for supracondylar femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1478-1481
  • 31 Gondalia V, Choi DH, Lee SC. et al. Periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: clinical comparison and related complications of the femur plate system and retrograde-inserted supracondylar nail. J Orthop Traumatol 2014; 15: 201-207
  • 32 Aldrian S, Schuster R, Haas N. et al. Fixation of supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: is there any difference comparing angular stable plate fixation versus rigid interlocking nail fixation?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133: 921-927
  • 33 Hou Z, Bowen TR, Irgit K. et al. Locked plating of periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 427-432
  • 34 Wallace SS, Bechtold D, Sassoon A. Periprosthetic fractures of the distal femur after total knee arthroplasty: plate versus nail fixation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017; 103: 257-262
  • 35 Hagel A, Siekmann H, Delank K-S. Periprosthetic femoral fracture – an interdisciplinary challenge. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111: 658-664
  • 36 Konan S, Sandiford N, Unno F. et al. Periprosthetic fractures associated with total knee arthroplasty: an update. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 1489-1496
  • 37 Ebraheim NA, Kelley LH, Liu X. et al. Periprosthetic distal femur fracture after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthop Surg 2015; 7: 297-305
  • 38 Kiluçoğlu OI, Akgül T, Sağlam Y. et al. Comparison of locked plating and intramedullary nailing for periprosthetic supracondylar femur fractures after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 2013; 79: 417-421
  • 39 Ristevski B, Nauth A, Williams DS. et al. Systematic review of the treatment of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2014; 28: 307-312
  • 40 Kösters C, Stange R, Raschke M. Periprothetische Frakturen bei Knieendoprothese – Osteosynthese. Trauma Berufskrankh 2012; 1-7
  • 41 Mardian S, Rau D, Schwabe P. et al. [Operative therapy of fractures of the distal femur. Predictive factors for a complicated course]. Orthopade 2016; 45: 32-37
  • 42 Zalzal P, Backstein D, Gross AE. et al. Notching of the anterior femoral cortex during total knee arthroplasty characteristics that increase local stresses. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21: 737-743