Femur Fractures
Conditions
Keywords
periprosthetic, femur fractures, Vancouver B1
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to compare two different but standard treatments for the fixation of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic. The investigators aim to compare open reduction internal fixation using a locked plating system versus plating and strut allograft with cerclage wiring to determine which treatment results in a faster return to function as measured by the TUG test at 6 weeks post-op.
Interventions
PROCEDUREIsolated Locked Compression Plate
A lateral thigh incision will be used to expose the fracture site. Surgeons will attempt to minimize devascularization of the bone by meticulous dissection and indirect reduction techniques. An appropriate sized plate will be applied to the lateral aspect of the femur. Fracture reduction will be achieved with the use of intra-operative fluoroscopy and the plate will be secured with locking screws.
PROCEDURECable Plating and Strut Allograft with Cerclage Wiring
The plate will be placed laterally with the allograft strut placed on the anterior cortex. Screw fixation will be used distal to the stem and cables and screws will be used proximal to the stem tip. Cerclage cables or wires will be used to secure the strut.
Sponsors
Unity Health Toronto
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Age: over 18, no upper limit * Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic fracture * Fracture is amenable to either treatment group * Prosthesis is well fixed * Provision of informed consent
Exclusion criteria
* Presence of an active infection around the fracture (soft tissue or bone) * Loose prosthesis * Trauma patients with an ISS \> 16 or associated major injuries of the lower extremities * Known substance abuse * Likely problems, in the judgment of the investigators, with maintaining follow-up (i.e., patients with no fixed address, report a plan to move out of town, or intellectually challenged patients without adequate family support)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| TUG test score at 6 weeks post-op | 6 weeks | We will administer the TUG test to each patient at 6 weeks to determine if there is a difference in functional status between both groups. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Re-operation rates | 1 year | We will measure rates of re-operationin each of the treatment groups on study specific case report forms. |
Countries
Canada
Contacts
Primary ContactEmil Schemitsch, MD, FRCS(C)
Backup ContactMichael McKee, MD, FRCS(C)
Outcome results
None listed