Grafting for periprosthetic femoral fractures: strut, impaction or femoral replacement

Abstract

Peri-prosthetic fractures are technically demanding to treat, as they require the skills of revision arthroplasty as well as those of trauma surgery. [Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:857-65.] reporting on 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures found that the annual incidence varied between 0.045% and 0.13% for all THAs performed in Sweden and that the accumulated incidence for the primary hip arthroplasties was 0.4% while for the revision arthroplasties was 2.1% [Lindahl H, Malchau H, Herberts P, Garellick G. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:857-65.]. The elderly population is particularly vulnerable to low energy periprosthetic fractures attributed to osteopenia or osteoporosis leaving limited reconstruction options to the hip revision surgeon. Bone grafting in the form of autograft has well recognized limitations and allograft represents the gold standard of bone augmentation in the majority of the cases. Allograft can be used as morselised in the form of impaction grafting, reconstructing the bone from within out, or in the form of structural allograft. In the latter case, strut onlay plates or whole proximal femoral allografts can be used to augment the deficient bone or to totally replace it respectively. Immune reaction and disease transmission along with delayed revascularization of the cortical allograft can cause failure of the construct in the long term; however, the results to date from their use are promising. We here present an overview of the literature on the use of available bone grafts in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.