Objective: The number of patients requiring knee and hip arthroplasty has been steadily increasing, and periprosthetic fractures are on the rise. Locking plates are the most common treatment for periprosthetic fractures, but the use of cerclage wires with locking plate fixation has been controversial.

Methods: Forty-seven patients with periprosthetic femur fractures were reviewed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients received locking plate alone and twenty-three patients were treated with locking plate and cerclage wires. Patients were evaluated for clinical and radiographic signs of union at two, six, twelve, twenty-four, and forty-eight weeks postoperatively.

Results: The average follow-up time in the plate group was 9.4 ± 6.7 months, while it was 6.0 ± 4.2 months in the cerclage wire group. The time to union in the cerclage wire group (3.6 ± 1.0 months) was significantly less than the plate group (4.8 ± 2.6 months). The group with the cerclage wires had a significantly lower revision rate of 0% compared to 20.8%. There was no statistical significance of union rate and complication rate between the two groups.

Conclusion: Cerclage wires used with locking plate fixation successfully treats periprosthetic fractures of the femur with faster time to union, less complication, and fewer revisions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6583122PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12052DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

locking plate
20
cerclage wires
20
plate fixation
12
periprosthetic fractures
12
group months
12
periprosthetic femur
8
femur fractures
8
fractures cerclage
8
wires locking
8
plate group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!