Femoral Stem Fractures After Primary and Revision Hip Replacements: A Single-Center Experience

ArticleAçık Erişim

Özet

Objectives: This study aims to present our experience in the management of fractured femoral stems after primary and revision hip replacements by evaluating the clinical and radiographic characteristics and determining the effectiveness of the extraction methods.Patients and methods: A total of 15 patients (5 males, 10 females; mean age 65.9 years; range, 49 to 87 years) who underwent revision hip replacement due to a fractured femoral stem between January 2005 and December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. The mechanisms and risk factors for failure as well as methods applied to extract fractured stem were analyzed through clinical and radiographic data. Results: Nine patients had fractured cemented femoral stems, while six patients had fractured fully porous coated cementless revision stems. Lack of proximal buttress in distally fixed femoral stems was detected in 11 patients and identified as the predominant mechanism resulting in fracture. The proximal extraction method with conventional revision instrumentation, the cortical window technique, and extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) were used in three, seven, and five cases, respectively. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that the lack of proximal buttress is the most common reason for femoral stem fracture. Moreover, the proximal extraction method was mostly ineffective in fully porous femoral stems. A step-by-step approach should be considered for the extraction of a broken stem. The cortical window method can be considered as the second step if proximal extraction methods fail, and ETO should be considered at the last step if all techniques fail. © 2020. by the Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation. All rights reserved.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/13707Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2020.76162Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorKöksal, Alper
dc.contributor.authorÖner, Ali
dc.contributor.authorÇimen, Osman
dc.contributor.authorAycan, Osman Emre
dc.contributor.authorAkgün, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorYapıcı, Furkan
dc.contributor.authorÇamurcu, Yalkın
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-18T20:28:31.957165791Z
dc.date.available2026-10-18T20:28:31.957165791Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study aims to present our experience in the management of fractured femoral stems after primary and revision hip replacements by evaluating the clinical and radiographic characteristics and determining the effectiveness of the extraction methods.Patients and methods: A total of 15 patients (5 males, 10 females; mean age 65.9 years; range, 49 to 87 years) who underwent revision hip replacement due to a fractured femoral stem between January 2005 and December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. The mechanisms and risk factors for failure as well as methods applied to extract fractured stem were analyzed through clinical and radiographic data. Results: Nine patients had fractured cemented femoral stems, while six patients had fractured fully porous coated cementless revision stems. Lack of proximal buttress in distally fixed femoral stems was detected in 11 patients and identified as the predominant mechanism resulting in fracture. The proximal extraction method with conventional revision instrumentation, the cortical window technique, and extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) were used in three, seven, and five cases, respectively. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that the lack of proximal buttress is the most common reason for femoral stem fracture. Moreover, the proximal extraction method was mostly ineffective in fully porous femoral stems. A step-by-step approach should be considered for the extraction of a broken stem. The cortical window method can be considered as the second step if proximal extraction methods fail, and ETO should be considered at the last step if all techniques fail. © 2020. by the Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation. All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doi10.5606/ehc.2020.76162
dc.identifier.eissn2687-4792
dc.identifier.endpage563
dc.identifier.issn2687-4792
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid32962589
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85091579119
dc.identifier.startpage557
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/13707
dc.identifier.volume31
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000573941100022
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTurkish Joint Diseases Foundation
dc.relation.ispartofJoint Diseases and Related Surgery
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectFemoral stem
dc.subjectstem fracture
dc.subjectstem revision
dc.subjecttotal hip arthroplasty
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAged, 80 and over
dc.subjectArthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
dc.subjectDevice Removal
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHip Prosthesis
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectOsteotomy
dc.subjectProsthesis Design
dc.subjectProsthesis Failure
dc.subjectReoperation
dc.subjectRetrospective Studies
dc.subjectRisk Factors
dc.subjectadverse device effect
dc.subjectadverse event
dc.subjectdevices
dc.subjecthip replacement
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectprocedures
dc.subjectprosthesis complication
dc.subjectretrospective study
dc.subjectrisk factor
dc.subjectvery elderly
dc.titleFemoral Stem Fractures After Primary and Revision Hip Replacements: A Single-Center Experience
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.scopus12
rdl.citation.trdizin2
rdl.citation.wos9
rdl.departmentT.C. SAĞLIK BAKANLIĞI
rdl.departmentERZİNCAN BİNALİ YILDIRIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ
rdl.oa.statusgold
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.source.indexTRDIZIN
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)