Michael P Murphy,Kaden M Kunz,Patrick Mark,Madeline Tiee,Bailey Johnson,Hobie Summers,Joseph Cohen,William D Lack
{"title":"转子间和股骨粗隆脆性骨折的多中心研究:跨越内固定可降低种植体周围骨折的风险。","authors":"Michael P Murphy,Kaden M Kunz,Patrick Mark,Madeline Tiee,Bailey Johnson,Hobie Summers,Joseph Cohen,William D Lack","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nWhether the fixation of pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric fragility fractures impacts the risk of subsequent peri-implant fracture remains unclear. We hypothesized that peri-implant fracture after an index pertrochanteric or intertrochanteric fragility fracture is associated with fixation that does not reach the distal metaphysis (non-spanning fixation).\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nRetrospective chart review was performed of patients treated for index pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral fragility fractures at 2 health-care systems between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2018. Cases were categorized by whether or not fixation reached the distal metaphysis (spanning compared with non-spanning). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses estimated cumulative incidences of peri-implant fracture stratified by patient, injury, and treatment characteristics, with hazard ratios (HRs) reported when significant. We also assessed whether spanning or non-spanning fixation was associated with a contralateral femoral fracture (a proxy for patient-related fracture risk). Significance was set at p < 0.05.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn this study, 913 patients with a median age of 80 years had a median follow-up of 5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3 weeks to 2.7 years). The OTA/AO classification included 388 type 31-A1 fractures, 324 type 31-A2 fractures, and 201 type 31-A3 fractures. There were 18 subsequent peri-implant fractures (1.9%) and 40 subsequent contralateral femoral fractures (4.4%). The cumulative incidence of peri-implant fracture was lower over time (p < 0.01) with spanning fixation (0% prior to 1 year) compared with non-spanning (3.3% prior to 1 year). The HR of spanning fixation for the entire time period was 0.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.62; p < 0.01). Peri-implant fracture risk was greater with non-spanning plates (p < 0.01) and non-spanning nails (p < 0.01) than spanning fixation, with cumulative 1-year incidences of 3.5% for non-spanning plates, 2.6% for non-spanning nails, and 0% for spanning fixation. Peri-implant fracture was not associated with other variables (p > 0.05). Contralateral fracture was not associated with the fixation group (p = 0.77), tempering concern regarding potential bias.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nSpanning fixation following pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral fragility fractures mitigates the risk of a peri-implant fracture. However, the choice of fixation for a given patient requires that this risk be considered within the greater context of surgical decision-making.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Multicenter Study of Intertrochanteric and Pertrochanteric Fragility Fractures: Spanning Fixation Mitigates the Risk of Peri-Implant Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Michael P Murphy,Kaden M Kunz,Patrick Mark,Madeline Tiee,Bailey Johnson,Hobie Summers,Joseph Cohen,William D Lack\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/jbjs.24.01169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nWhether the fixation of pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric fragility fractures impacts the risk of subsequent peri-implant fracture remains unclear. We hypothesized that peri-implant fracture after an index pertrochanteric or intertrochanteric fragility fracture is associated with fixation that does not reach the distal metaphysis (non-spanning fixation).\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nRetrospective chart review was performed of patients treated for index pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral fragility fractures at 2 health-care systems between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2018. Cases were categorized by whether or not fixation reached the distal metaphysis (spanning compared with non-spanning). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses estimated cumulative incidences of peri-implant fracture stratified by patient, injury, and treatment characteristics, with hazard ratios (HRs) reported when significant. We also assessed whether spanning or non-spanning fixation was associated with a contralateral femoral fracture (a proxy for patient-related fracture risk). Significance was set at p < 0.05.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nIn this study, 913 patients with a median age of 80 years had a median follow-up of 5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3 weeks to 2.7 years). The OTA/AO classification included 388 type 31-A1 fractures, 324 type 31-A2 fractures, and 201 type 31-A3 fractures. There were 18 subsequent peri-implant fractures (1.9%) and 40 subsequent contralateral femoral fractures (4.4%). The cumulative incidence of peri-implant fracture was lower over time (p < 0.01) with spanning fixation (0% prior to 1 year) compared with non-spanning (3.3% prior to 1 year). The HR of spanning fixation for the entire time period was 0.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.62; p < 0.01). Peri-implant fracture risk was greater with non-spanning plates (p < 0.01) and non-spanning nails (p < 0.01) than spanning fixation, with cumulative 1-year incidences of 3.5% for non-spanning plates, 2.6% for non-spanning nails, and 0% for spanning fixation. Peri-implant fracture was not associated with other variables (p > 0.05). Contralateral fracture was not associated with the fixation group (p = 0.77), tempering concern regarding potential bias.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nSpanning fixation following pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral fragility fractures mitigates the risk of a peri-implant fracture. However, the choice of fixation for a given patient requires that this risk be considered within the greater context of surgical decision-making.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01169\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Multicenter Study of Intertrochanteric and Pertrochanteric Fragility Fractures: Spanning Fixation Mitigates the Risk of Peri-Implant Fractures.
BACKGROUND
Whether the fixation of pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric fragility fractures impacts the risk of subsequent peri-implant fracture remains unclear. We hypothesized that peri-implant fracture after an index pertrochanteric or intertrochanteric fragility fracture is associated with fixation that does not reach the distal metaphysis (non-spanning fixation).
METHODS
Retrospective chart review was performed of patients treated for index pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral fragility fractures at 2 health-care systems between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2018. Cases were categorized by whether or not fixation reached the distal metaphysis (spanning compared with non-spanning). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses estimated cumulative incidences of peri-implant fracture stratified by patient, injury, and treatment characteristics, with hazard ratios (HRs) reported when significant. We also assessed whether spanning or non-spanning fixation was associated with a contralateral femoral fracture (a proxy for patient-related fracture risk). Significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
In this study, 913 patients with a median age of 80 years had a median follow-up of 5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 3 weeks to 2.7 years). The OTA/AO classification included 388 type 31-A1 fractures, 324 type 31-A2 fractures, and 201 type 31-A3 fractures. There were 18 subsequent peri-implant fractures (1.9%) and 40 subsequent contralateral femoral fractures (4.4%). The cumulative incidence of peri-implant fracture was lower over time (p < 0.01) with spanning fixation (0% prior to 1 year) compared with non-spanning (3.3% prior to 1 year). The HR of spanning fixation for the entire time period was 0.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.62; p < 0.01). Peri-implant fracture risk was greater with non-spanning plates (p < 0.01) and non-spanning nails (p < 0.01) than spanning fixation, with cumulative 1-year incidences of 3.5% for non-spanning plates, 2.6% for non-spanning nails, and 0% for spanning fixation. Peri-implant fracture was not associated with other variables (p > 0.05). Contralateral fracture was not associated with the fixation group (p = 0.77), tempering concern regarding potential bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Spanning fixation following pertrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral fragility fractures mitigates the risk of a peri-implant fracture. However, the choice of fixation for a given patient requires that this risk be considered within the greater context of surgical decision-making.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.