Management Strategies, Complications and Outcomes of Periprosthetic Fractures Around Knee Mega-prosthesis

Abstract Background Mega-prostheses, or endoprosthetic replacements (EPRs), are integral to limb-salvage surgery following tumor resection around the knee. Although implant design has advanced, these reconstructions remain prone to complications and higher failure rates compared with conventional implants. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) represent a particularly challenging problem, influenced by mechanical stress, compromised bone stock, and extensive soft-tissue resection. Methods We conducted a retrospective study at a UK tertiary referral center, evaluating the incidence of PPFs between 2010 and 2018, and the management and outcomes of 36 PPFs in 31 patients (median age 34.5 years, range 8–96) treated between 1996 and 2019. Data included demographics, primary diagnosis, fracture classification using the Unified Classification System (UCS), implant stability, treatment modality, and outcomes. Results The incidence of PPFs was 4.9% following proximal tibial resection and 2.8% following distal femoral resection. Of the 36 fractures analyzed, 24 (66.7%) were femoral and 12 (33.3%) tibial; most (83.3%) involved cemented rotating-hinge implants. UCS Type B1 fractures accounted for half of all cases. Non-operative management, employed in nine fractures (25%; six B1 and three C), was uniformly successful with no failures. Operative management (27 fractures, 75%) demonstrated a 44% failure rate, driven primarily by infection. Five patients (16.1%) required amputation, all in association with prosthetic joint infection. Mechanical contributors included cement extravasation (14%) and stem malalignment (8%). Conclusions Non-operative treatment appears effective for select stable and minimally displaced B1 and C fractures, with lower complication rates compared to surgical intervention. Operative strategies carry a high risk of failure, predominantly due to infection, emphasizing the need for stringent infection prevention and individualized treatment planning in this high-risk population.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
Published
2026-10-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-026-02000-z
Primary Topic
Bone fractures and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Management Strategies, Complications and Outcomes of Periprosthetic Fractures Around Knee Mega-prosthesis

Feras Qawasmi, Mustafa Yassin, Assil Mahamid, Ali Yassin et al.
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
Bone fractures and treatments
article

Management Strategies, Complications and Outcomes of Periprosthetic Fractures Around Knee Mega-prosthesis

Feras Qawasmi, Mustafa Yassin, Assil Mahamid, Ali Yassin, Hamza Murad, Muhammad Khatib
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Mega-prostheses, or endoprosthetic replacements (EPRs), are integral to limb-salvage surgery following tumor resection around the knee. Although implant design has advanced, these reconstructions remain prone to complications and higher failure rates compared with conventional implants. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) represent a particularly challenging problem, influenced by mechanical stress, compromised bone stock, and extensive soft-tissue resection. Methods We conducted a retrospective study at a UK tertiary referral center, evaluating the incidence of PPFs between 2010 and 2018, and the management and outcomes of 36 PPFs in 31 patients (median age 34.5 years, range 8–96) treated between 1996 and 2019. Data included demographics, primary diagnosis, fracture classification using the Unified Classification System (UCS), implant stability, treatment modality, and outcomes. Results The incidence of PPFs was 4.9% following proximal tibial resection and 2.8% following distal femoral resection. Of the 36 fractures analyzed, 24 (66.7%) were femoral and 12 (33.3%) tibial; most (83.3%) involved cemented rotating-hinge implants. UCS Type B1 fractures accounted for half of all cases. Non-operative management, employed in nine fractures (25%; six B1 and three C), was uniformly successful with no failures. Operative management (27 fractures, 75%) demonstrated a 44% failure rate, driven primarily by infection. Five patients (16.1%) required amputation, all in association with prosthetic joint infection. Mechanical contributors included cement extravasation (14%) and stem malalignment (8%). Conclusions Non-operative treatment appears effective for select stable and minimally displaced B1 and C fractures, with lower complication rates compared to surgical intervention. Operative strategies carry a high risk of failure, predominantly due to infection, emphasizing the need for stringent infection prevention and individualized treatment planning in this high-risk population.

Indian Journal of Orthopaedics
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Bone fractures and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.