Research ExplorerPublicationsWhat is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractu...

What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur?

Standard

What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. / Lehmann, Wolfgang; Rupprecht, Martin; Nuechtern, Jacob; Melzner, Daniel; Sellenschloh, Kai; Kolb, Jan; Fensky, Florian; Hoffmann, Michael; Püschel, Klaus; Morlock, Michael; Rueger, Johannes M.

In: INT ORTHOP, Vol. 36, No. 12, 01.12.2012, p. 2441-6.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Lehmann, W, Rupprecht, M, Nuechtern, J, Melzner, D, Sellenschloh, K, Kolb, J, Fensky, F, Hoffmann, M, Püschel, K, Morlock, M & Rueger, JM 2012, 'What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis', INT ORTHOP, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 2441-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0

APA

Lehmann, W., Rupprecht, M., Nuechtern, J., Melzner, D., Sellenschloh, K., Kolb, J., Fensky, F., Hoffmann, M., Püschel, K., Morlock, M., & Rueger, J. M. (2012). What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. INT ORTHOP, 36(12), 2441-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0

Vancouver

Lehmann W, Rupprecht M, Nuechtern J, Melzner D, Sellenschloh K, Kolb J et al. What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis. INT ORTHOP. 2012 Dec 1;36(12):2441-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0

Bibtex

@article{daa4d960ee8b44ceb6e32cb45fbd4ec2,
title = "What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur?: A biomechanical analysis",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Due to increasing life expectancy we see a rising number of joint replacements. Along with the proximal prosthesis in the femur, more and more people have a second implant on the distal ipsilateral side. This might be a retrograde nail or a locking plate to treat distal femur fractures or a constrained knee prosthesis in the case of severe arthrosis. All these constructs can lead to fractures between the implants. The goal of this study was to evaluate the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur.METHODS: Thirty human cadaveric femurs were divided into five groups: (1) femurs with a prosthesis on the proximal side only, (2) hip prosthesis on the proximal end and a distal femur nail, (3) femurs with both a hip prosthesis and a constrained knee prosthesis, (4) femurs with a hip prosthesis on the proximal side and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 230 mm in length, with ten holes in the shaft, and (5) femurs with a proximal hip prosthesis and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 342 mm in length, with 16 holes in the shaft.RESULTS: Femurs with a hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis showed significantly higher required fracture force compared to femurs with a hip prosthesis and a distal retrograde nail. Femurs with a distal locking plate of either length showed a higher required fracture force than those with the retrograde nail.CONCLUSIONS: The highest risk for a fracture in the femur with an existing hip prosthesis comes with a retrograde nail. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force. The implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened on the ipsilateral side does not increase the risk for a fracture.",
keywords = "Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Biomechanical Phenomena, Bone Nails, Bone Plates, Cadaver, Female, Femoral Fractures, Hip Prosthesis, Humans, Knee Prosthesis, Male, Periprosthetic Fractures, Risk Factors, Stress, Mechanical",
author = "Wolfgang Lehmann and Martin Rupprecht and Jacob Nuechtern and Daniel Melzner and Kai Sellenschloh and Jan Kolb and Florian Fensky and Michael Hoffmann and Klaus P{\"u}schel and Michael Morlock and Rueger, {Johannes M}",
year = "2012",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "2441--6",
journal = "INT ORTHOP",
issn = "0341-2695",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur?

T2 - A biomechanical analysis

AU - Lehmann, Wolfgang

AU - Rupprecht, Martin

AU - Nuechtern, Jacob

AU - Melzner, Daniel

AU - Sellenschloh, Kai

AU - Kolb, Jan

AU - Fensky, Florian

AU - Hoffmann, Michael

AU - Püschel, Klaus

AU - Morlock, Michael

AU - Rueger, Johannes M

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Due to increasing life expectancy we see a rising number of joint replacements. Along with the proximal prosthesis in the femur, more and more people have a second implant on the distal ipsilateral side. This might be a retrograde nail or a locking plate to treat distal femur fractures or a constrained knee prosthesis in the case of severe arthrosis. All these constructs can lead to fractures between the implants. The goal of this study was to evaluate the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur.METHODS: Thirty human cadaveric femurs were divided into five groups: (1) femurs with a prosthesis on the proximal side only, (2) hip prosthesis on the proximal end and a distal femur nail, (3) femurs with both a hip prosthesis and a constrained knee prosthesis, (4) femurs with a hip prosthesis on the proximal side and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 230 mm in length, with ten holes in the shaft, and (5) femurs with a proximal hip prosthesis and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 342 mm in length, with 16 holes in the shaft.RESULTS: Femurs with a hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis showed significantly higher required fracture force compared to femurs with a hip prosthesis and a distal retrograde nail. Femurs with a distal locking plate of either length showed a higher required fracture force than those with the retrograde nail.CONCLUSIONS: The highest risk for a fracture in the femur with an existing hip prosthesis comes with a retrograde nail. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force. The implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened on the ipsilateral side does not increase the risk for a fracture.

AB - PURPOSE: Due to increasing life expectancy we see a rising number of joint replacements. Along with the proximal prosthesis in the femur, more and more people have a second implant on the distal ipsilateral side. This might be a retrograde nail or a locking plate to treat distal femur fractures or a constrained knee prosthesis in the case of severe arthrosis. All these constructs can lead to fractures between the implants. The goal of this study was to evaluate the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur.METHODS: Thirty human cadaveric femurs were divided into five groups: (1) femurs with a prosthesis on the proximal side only, (2) hip prosthesis on the proximal end and a distal femur nail, (3) femurs with both a hip prosthesis and a constrained knee prosthesis, (4) femurs with a hip prosthesis on the proximal side and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 230 mm in length, with ten holes in the shaft, and (5) femurs with a proximal hip prosthesis and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 342 mm in length, with 16 holes in the shaft.RESULTS: Femurs with a hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis showed significantly higher required fracture force compared to femurs with a hip prosthesis and a distal retrograde nail. Femurs with a distal locking plate of either length showed a higher required fracture force than those with the retrograde nail.CONCLUSIONS: The highest risk for a fracture in the femur with an existing hip prosthesis comes with a retrograde nail. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force. The implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened on the ipsilateral side does not increase the risk for a fracture.

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Biomechanical Phenomena

KW - Bone Nails

KW - Bone Plates

KW - Cadaver

KW - Female

KW - Femoral Fractures

KW - Hip Prosthesis

KW - Humans

KW - Knee Prosthesis

KW - Male

KW - Periprosthetic Fractures

KW - Risk Factors

KW - Stress, Mechanical

U2 - 10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0

DO - 10.1007/s00264-012-1697-0

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 23132503

VL - 36

SP - 2441

EP - 2446

JO - INT ORTHOP

JF - INT ORTHOP

SN - 0341-2695

IS - 12

ER -