medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8560 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión Científica de la Federación Mexicana de Colegios de Ortopedia y Traumatología, A.C. (FEMECOT)

2021, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Ortho-tips 2021; 17 (4)

Characteristics patients of periprosthetic femur fracture in total knee arthroplasty between 2015 and 2018

González MJJ, Bustos MR, González SA

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 202-205
PDF size: 132.14 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Periprosthetic fractures in total knee arthroplasty are a rare complication in terms of incidence, with its main incidence in supracondylar fractures with 2.5% in primary arthroplasty and 1.6 to 38% in revision, however, the amount of joint replacement surgeries are increasing either by age or comorbidities of the patients, including the age of patients with joint prostheses is increasing, which consequently would give an increase in this complication, so knowing the incidence of itself and its epidemiology in our environment is a priority. Material and methods: A sample of 37 patients received in our hospital between the years 2015 to 2018 is recorded, organized according to the Rorabeck-Lewis classification. Results: In 37 cases, of wich 35 met the inclusion criteria, 31 corresponded to women, predominating over the male sex. Primary prostheses would has a higher rate of fractures with 33 patient (94.2%) compared to revision prostheses. The most common type was II with 18 patients (51.4%), followed by type III with nine patients (25.7%) and finally, type I with eight patients (22.8%). The highest incidence of fractures was found between first and fifth year after of arthroplasty with 14 patients (40%). The main mechanism of injury was falls of low energy trauma with 30 patients (85.7%). Conclusion: The incidence of periprosthetic fractures in our country does not seem to exceed others, however, there is an apparent increase over the years that may be sequential to the increase in total knee arthroplasties.


REFERENCES

  1. Delanois RE, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Mohamed NS, Choksi US, Mont MA. Current epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32 (9): 2663-2668.

  2. Maradit KH, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97 (17): 1386-1397.

  3. Rorabeck CH, Taylor JW. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999; 30 (2): 265-277.

  4. García GAJ, Cano PA, Moreno DR, Giráldez SM, Cano LP. Análisis de la mortalidad tras el tratamiento quirúrgico de las fracturas periprotésicas de fémur distal. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2020; 64 (2): 92-98.

  5. Bhattacharyya T, Chang D, Meigs JB, Estok DM 2nd, Malchau H. Mortality after periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89 (12): 2658-2662.

  6. Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE, Namba RS, Nemes S. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States - an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017; 25 (11): 1797-1803.

  7. Meek RM, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR. The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93 (1): 96-101.

  8. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Demanda futura de pacientes jóvenes para el reemplazo articular primario y de revisión: proyecciones nacionales de 2010 a 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467 (10): 2606-2612.

  9. Arias-de la Torre J, Capdevila A, Martínez O, Domingo L, Marinelli M, Robles N, et al. Una década del Registro de Artroplastias de Cataluña (RACat): exhaustividad, variabilidad y supervivencia de las prótesis entre 2005 y 2014. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2017; 61 (2): 70-81.

  10. Castells X, Comas M, Guerrero R, Espallargues M, Allepuz A, Sabatés S, et al. Impacto de la cirugía para el recambio de prótesis de rodilla en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Agéncia de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya; 2014.

  11. Yoo JD, Kim NK. Periprosthetic fractures following total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2015; 27 (1): 1-9.

  12. Della Rocca GJ, Leung KS, Pape HC. Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma. 2011; 25 Suppl 2: S66-S70.

  13. Espinosa-Mendoza RL, Soto-Padilla M, Gómez-García F. Frecuencia de patología musculoesquelética y su tratamiento en pacientes adultos mayores en un Hospital Privado de la Ciudad de México. Acta Ortop Mex. 2015; 29 (1): 21-27.

  14. Saus N, Silvestre A, Almeida Herrero F, Gállego S, Gomar Sancho F. Tratamiento de las fracturas periprotésicas de rodilla: revisión de 29 casos. Rev Esp Cir Osteoartic. 2014; 49 (258): 79-83.

  15. Chen F, Mont MA, Bachner RS. Management of ipsilateral supracondylar femur fractures following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1994; 9 (5): 521-526.

  16. Zarur MN, Caldelas CE, Gómez BCD. Fracturas periprotésicas femorales tratadas con clavo supracondíleo distal, después de prótesis total de la rodilla. Acta Ortop Mex. 2001; 15 (6): 278-279.

  17. Celaya F, González JC, Aguilera X, Sarasquete J, Jordán M. Fracturas periprotésicas de rodilla. Opciones terapéuticas. Arthros. 2009; 7 (1): 5-13.

  18. González UH. Fracturas periprotésicas de rodilla. Ortho-tips. 2018; 14 (3): 131-139.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com