Periprosthetic fractures and complicated arthroplasties

Hamadouche, Moussa; Stern, Ludmila

doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2977-2

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Periprosthetic fracture has become a frequent complication of total hip and knee arthroplasties with rates up to 15% in major registries. 1 The most common fracture localization of the periprosthetic fracture is the femur, and periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become a severe clinical disease which has been found to be much more common after uncemented hip replacement. 2 , 3 PPFF is the second major cause for revision THA, 4 and the third most common complication after THA following aseptic loosening and infection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The History of Classification Systems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Literature Review

Yao,

Fan,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) present a significant clinical challenge due to their increasing incidence with an aging population and evolving surgical practices. Historically, classifications were primarily based on anatomical fracture location, the stability of the implant, and bone quality surrounding the implant. We critically analyzed 25 classification systems, highlighting the emergence and adaptations of key systems such as the Vancouver classification system (VCS) and the Unified classification system (UCS), which are lauded for their simplicity and effectiveness yet require further refinement. VCS, developed in 1995, categorizes fractures based on the site, implant stability, and bone quality, and remains widely used due to its robust applicability across different clinical settings. Introduced in 2014, UCS expands the VCS to encompass all periprosthetic fractures with additional fracture types, aiming for a universal application. Despite their widespread adoption, these systems exhibit shortcomings, including the incomplete inclusion of all PPFF types and the imprecise assessment of implant stability and surrounding bone loss. These gaps can result in misclassification and suboptimal treatment outcomes. This paper suggests the necessity for ongoing improvements in classification systems to include emerging fracture types and refined diagnostic criteria, ensuring that they remain relevant to contemporary orthopedic practices and continue to facilitate the precise tailoring of treatment to patient‐specific circumstances. This comprehensive historical review serves as a foundation for future innovations in classification systems, ultimately aiming to standardize PPFF treatment and improve patient prognosis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The History of Classification Systems for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Literature Review

Yao,

Fan,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The "Shoulder Surgery" special issue was edited by Scarlat in February 2015 [12]. Luis Lopez Duran from Spain and Moussa Hamadouche from France hosted the special issue dedicated to periprosthetic fractures in November 2015 [13]. Ultimately the "Spinal" issue hosted by Andrew Qualie from the United Kingdom was released in June 2016 [14] and a new "Hip" special issue dedicated to the concept of double mobility is in plan to be edited by the excellent Jacques Caton together with André Ferreira from Lyon.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%