title: Treatment of periprosthetic fractures in association with total hip arthroplasty--a retrospective comparison between revision stem and plate fixation.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  In periprosthetic fracture associated with hip arthroplasty, no consensus exists about the use of plate fixation or revision stem except for cases where the stem is loose in a young patient and a revision is made. The aim of the present retrospective study was to compare two commonly used alternatives for treatment of the fracture--revision arthroplasty and plate fixation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Seventy-five fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty were treated with revision arthroplasty (N = 40) or compression plate fixation (N = 35). Twenty-one fractures were intraoperative and 54 were postoperative. In revision arthroplasty, cemented (N = 11) and porous-coated (N = 29) stems were sued. Autologous bone grafts were used in 15 revision arthroplasties and 20 plate fixations. The follow-up time was median 20 months (range 12-96 months).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Bone grafting at the time of fracture treatment had no significant effect on fracture healing in the present setting. One patient in both groups was operated secondarily because of fracture instability. Five nonunions in the former and 9 nonunions in the latter group were treated by repeated revision and bone graft. In two revision arthroplasties and nine cases with plate fixation, a secondary bone grafting operation was performed for delayed union. In all, 20 secondary operations were needed after prosthesis stem revision and 27 secondary operations after plate fixation (p = 0.014). The need for reoperations was similar in fractures at different levels of the femur. Fracture healing was finally obtained in 39 revision arthroplasties and 34 cases with plate fixation during the follow-up period.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cases where the prosthesis stem is stable, where its removal would include great risks and, where the biomechanical conditions are optimal, are best treated with plate fixation. In cases where the stem is loose and where a choice is possible, stem revision is preferable to plate fixation.
authors.affiliation: Orton Orthopaedic Hospital, Invalid Foundation, Helsinki, Finland. antti.alho@invalidisaatio.fi
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Jukkala-Partio
authors.forename: E K
authors.initials: EK
authors.lastname: Partio
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Solovieva
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Paavilainen
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Hirvensalo
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Alho
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000009:adverse effects*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D001843:Bone Cements / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001860:Bone Plates; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005260:Female; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000209:etiology* / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018579:Patient Selection; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D011859:Radiography; D012086:Reoperation / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D001843:Bone Cements; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible