Interprosthetic femoral fractures—A challenge of treatment. A systematic review of the literature

Solarino, Giuseppe; Vicenti, Giovanni; Moretti, Luigi; Abate, Antonella; Spinarelli, Antonio; Moretti, Biagio

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.09.028

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These factors may be patient specific, implant specific, or technique related. 9 Patient-specific factors include osteoporosis, osteomalacia, and other conditions of bone that may weaken its structural integrity. [9][10][11] Implant-related factors include implant design, loosening, infection, and prior revision surgery.…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 Patient-specific factors include osteoporosis, osteomalacia, and other conditions of bone that may weaken its structural integrity. [9][10][11] Implant-related factors include implant design, loosening, infection, and prior revision surgery. [9][10][11] Technique-related factors include malalignment, inap-propriate implant size, stress shielding, osteolysis, and distal femur notching.…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9][10][11] Implant-related factors include implant design, loosening, infection, and prior revision surgery. [9][10][11] Technique-related factors include malalignment, inap-propriate implant size, stress shielding, osteolysis, and distal femur notching. [9][10][11] Certain factors are specific to the development of IP fractures of the femur, such as the presence of 2 implants and the spacing between them.…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9][10][11] Technique-related factors include malalignment, inap-propriate implant size, stress shielding, osteolysis, and distal femur notching. [9][10][11] Certain factors are specific to the development of IP fractures of the femur, such as the presence of 2 implants and the spacing between them. Biomechanical studies have shown that the presence of a proximal femoral stem reduces the strength of the femur approximately 32%.…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interprosthetic Fractures of the Femur

Romeo¹,

Firoozabadi²

2018

Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the rate of hip and knee arthroplasty procedures increases, so will the rate of interprosthetic fractures. Several factors, including bone quality, bone quantity, and stability of the prosthetic components, play a role in determining the appropriate operative treatment. Patients with stable components should undergo reduction and internal fixation, while patients with loose components should undergo either revision arthroplasty, with or without additional fixation, or conversion to total femur replacement. Despite implant and technique advances, complications remain frequent. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):e1-e7.].

show abstract

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interprosthetic Fractures of the Femur

Romeo¹,

Firoozabadi²

2018

Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have reported on this challenging situation [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. A recent review by Solarino et al showed there were 127 cases of interprosthetic femoral fractures in the literature [18]. Only 77 of these cases used locking plates, all of whom had varied treatments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%