SURGICAL OPTIONS IN THE TRATAMENT OF PERIIMPLANT FEMORAL FRACTURES

  • B. PUHA “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • T.S. GHEORGHEVICI “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Manuela POROH “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • B. VELICEASA “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • D. POPESCU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • O. ALEXA “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Abstract

Aim: Hip fractures tend to increase as a global number-approx. 300,000/year. Life expectancy of the population is increasing, implicitly the diseases associated with the advanced age are increasing. At the same time, the number of peri-implant fractures (PIF) is increasing. These types of fractures usually have their headquarters at the base of the implant where poor quality bone comes into contact with the rigid implant. Our aim is to identify the factors that influence the production of these types of fractures and to optimize their treatment. Material and methods: We analyzed for 6 months, 4 patients with peri-implant fracture of the femur in terms of age, sex, place of origin, type of fracture, treatment type. The surgical treatment applied was different from case to case with favorable postoperative evolution. Results: The results from surgical interventions were optimal, assessing fracture stability, restoring mechanical stability, respecting the biological environment, and choosing the right fixation device. Conclusions: Peri-implant fractures are a distinct topic in fractures. The long-term implant can alter the bone structure, and may complicate the healing or placement of a new implant, making treatment a challenge for the surgeon.

Author Biographies

B. PUHA, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

T.S. GHEORGHEVICI, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

Manuela POROH, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

B. VELICEASA, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

D. POPESCU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

O. ALEXA, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Faculty of Medicine
Department of Surgery (II)

References

1. Natasja M. van Schoor, MSc; Johannes H. Smit, Jos W. R. Twisk, et al. Prevention of Hip Fractures by External Hip Protectors A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2003; 289(15): 1957-1962.
2. Mazzuoli GF, Gennari C, Passeri M, Acca M, Camporeale A, Pioli G. Hip fracture in Italy: epidemi-ology and preventive efficacy of bone-active drugs. Bone 1993; 14(Suppl 1): S81-84.
3. DeLee JC. Fractures and dislocations of the hip. In: Green DP, Bucholz R.W editor. Rockwood and Green's Fractures in Adults, 4th Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincot-Raven, 1996.
4. Georgescu N, Alexa O. Fracturile extremitatii femurale superioare, Iasi: Junimea, 2003.
5. Curtin BM, Fehring TK. Bisphosphonate fractures as a cause of painful total hip arthroplasty. Ortho-pedics 2011; 34(12): e939-944.
6. Koval KJ, Frankel VH, Kummer F, Green S. Complications of fracture fixation devices. Epps CH, ed. Complications in Orthopaedic Surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1994. 131-154.
7. Lang NW, Joestl J, Payr S, Platzer P, Sarahrudi K. Secondary femur shaft fracture following treatment with cephalomedullary nail: a retrospective single-center experience. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017. doi: 10.1007/s00402-017-2748-1.
8. Ma KL, Wang X, Luan FJ, et all. Proximal femoral nails antirotation, Gamma nails, and dynamic hip screws for fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of femur: A meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014: 100(8): 859-866.
9. Guild GN 3rd, Runner RP, Rickels TD, Oldja R, Faizan A. Anthropometric Computed Tomography Reconstruction Identifies Risk Factors for Cortical Perforation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Arthoplasty 2016; 31(11): 2554-2558.
Published
2018-04-04