Less invasive stabilisation system (LISS) for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: A 3-year follow-up

Kobbe, Philipp; Klemm, Ralf; Reilmann, H.; Hockertz, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.10.034

Cited by 50 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Locking-plate systems tend to solve problems related to the inability of conventional unicortical screws to provide sufficient stability around the prosthetic stem [3,7,8,10]. Locking unicortical screws can provide angular stability in nonosteoporotic bone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nickel-titanium shape-memory sawtooth-arm embracing fixator for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Zhao

Zhu

Sun

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We reviewed data to determine outcomes for 21 consecutive Vancouver type B1 or type C periprosthetic fractures that we treated between 2001 and 2008 using a nickel-titanium shape-memory sawtooth-arm embracing fixator. Methods The study participants were 12 men and 9 women (mean age, 70.8 years; range, 42-85 years). The average duration of follow-up monitoring was 39.7 months (range, 1-78 months). In five cases, cables and screws were used for further stabilisation. No bone grafting was performed for any of the patients. Results Results were satisfactory, except for one patient who died one month after surgery from a cause unrelated to arthroplasty. Bone union was achieved in the remaining 20 cases within an average of 5.25 months. No implant failures or malunions occurred in any of the patients. The average Harris hip score at the final follow-up examination was 79.3 points. Conclusions Our results show that the embracing fixator is a valid alternative treatment for Vancouver type B1 or type C periprosthetic femoral fractures.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most situations, there is limited space for bicortical locking screws around the prosthetic stem. Consequently, implant failures are often observed [3,7,8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nickel-titanium shape-memory sawtooth-arm embracing fixator for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Zhao

Zhu

Sun

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of periprosthetic fractures in the future will increase, given the aging population and the increased number of primary knee arthroplasty in connection with osteoarthritis of the knee (45). The treatment of periprosthetic fractures is more complex task, considering osteoporosis in the elderly, an increased risk of periprosthetic infection, difficulty in reposition of fragments around the femoral component of the knee prosthesis, and the presence of metalosis (46).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Reposition and Stabilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of fractures of the distal femoral – overviews of osteosynthesis funds

Dimitrov¹

2016

TJS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distal femoral fractures thigh up from 4 to 9% of all fractures of the femur. There is a direct relationship between the mechanism of receipt of the lesion and the age, sex and the type of fracture. Caused mainly by high-traumatic effects and lead to a high degree of disability. For these reasons, injuries in this anatomical area are of great social importance. The goal of the distal femur fractures treatment is to recover patients preoperative status for the shortest possible period. This may be achieved by open reposition and internal fixation. Recent years are characterized by significant progress in the treatment of this type of fracture. This is due to the rapid development of new and sound biomechanical implants: 95 ° Angled blade plates (ABP), condylar buttress plates (CBP), dynamic condylar screw (DCS), retrograde intramedullary nails (two locking or a locking screw + spiral blade), LISS-plates. The discussion in the treatment of these fractures is concentrated in the choice of means of internal fixation by which to achieve the greater stability of the individual type of fracture.

show abstract

“…3,6,18,21,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Rates of outcomes were nonunion 9% (11/120), malunion 3% (2/62), hardware failure 7% (8/120), infection 5% (6/115), and reoperation 12% (14/120), with 14% (17/120) of patients suffered a complication. Locking plates had a significantly higher rate of nonunion compared with group 2 (cable plate/compression plate) (P = 0.03) and a trend toward increased risk of hardware failure (P = 0.07).…”

Section: Group 4: Locking Platesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Fixation of Vancouver Type B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

Dehghan

McKee

Nauth

et al. 2014

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In total, 333 patients identified with an overall rate of 5% nonunion, 6% malunion, 5% infection, 4% hardware failure, 9% reoperation, and 15% total complications. When comparing outcomes for different modes of fixation, compared with cable plate/compression plate systems, locking plates had a significantly higher rate of nonunion (3% vs. 9% P = 0.02) and a trend toward a higher rate of hardware failure (2% vs. 7%, P = 0.07). There are limitations to this study, and further investigation with high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed to effectively compare treatment strategies.

show abstract

Less invasive stabilisation system (LISS) for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: A 3-year follow-up

Cited by 50 publications

References 25 publications

Nickel-titanium shape-memory sawtooth-arm embracing fixator for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Nickel-titanium shape-memory sawtooth-arm embracing fixator for periprosthetic femoral fractures

Treatment of fractures of the distal femoral – overviews of osteosynthesis funds

Surgical Fixation of Vancouver Type B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About