Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

TKA Periprosthetic Fractures

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

TKA Periprosthetic Fractures

Comprehensive guide to periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty - classification, management algorithms, and surgical techniques

complete
Updated: 2025-12-17
High Yield Overview

TKA PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES

Supracondylar Femur | Tibial Plateau | Patella | Lewis and Rorabeck Classification

2.5%Incidence post-TKA
80%Distal femur fractures
30%Mortality at 1 year
40%Nonunion risk if untreated

LEWIS & RORABECK CLASSIFICATION (Supracondylar)

Type I
PatternNon-displaced, prosthesis stable
TreatmentORIF with locking plate
Type II
PatternDisplaced, prosthesis stable
TreatmentORIF or retrograde IM nail
Type III
PatternProsthesis loose or failing
TreatmentRevision arthroplasty with stems

Critical Must-Knows

  • Lewis & Rorabeck classification determines treatment based on displacement and prosthetic stability
  • Anterior femoral notching increases fracture risk 4-fold - assess on lateral radiographs
  • Type III fractures require revision arthroplasty with long cemented stems, NOT simple ORIF
  • Retrograde IM nailing requires open intercondylar box in femoral component for nail passage
  • Bone quality and fixation are paramount - osteoporotic bone requires locked plating or cemented stems

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    In viva, examiners test ability to classify fracture AND assess prosthetic stability independently
  • "
    Type II vs Type III distinction: Examine AP and lateral radiographs for lucency, subsidence, alignment
  • "
    Surgical approach selection depends on implant compatibility (open box vs closed box femoral component)
  • "
    Australian context: AOANJRR reports increasing revision burden from periprosthetic fractures with aging population

Clinical Imaging

Imaging Gallery

2-panel (a-b) supracondylar periprosthetic fracture above TKA: (a) AP X-ray showing oblique supracondylar fracture proximal to femoral component, (b) lateral view showing fracture displacement with in
Click to expand
2-panel (a-b) supracondylar periprosthetic fracture above TKA: (a) AP X-ray showing oblique supracondylar fracture proximal to femoral component, (b) Credit: McGraw P et al. - J Orthop Traumatol via Open-i (NIH) - PMC2948125 (CC-BY 4.0)
3-panel (a-c) retrograde intramedullary nail fixation for supracondylar periprosthetic fracture: (a) pre-op AP with TKA and fracture, (b) lateral showing retrograde nail extending proximal to fracture
Click to expand
3-panel (a-c) retrograde intramedullary nail fixation for supracondylar periprosthetic fracture: (a) pre-op AP with TKA and fracture, (b) lateral showCredit: Hierholzer C et al. - Indian J Orthop via Open-i (NIH) - PMC3087226 (CC-BY 4.0)
4-panel (a-d) salvage total femoral reconstruction for massive bone loss: (a) AP showing THA proximally with long plate, (b) lateral of proximal construct with cerclage, (c) AP showing distal reconstr
Click to expand
4-panel (a-d) salvage total femoral reconstruction for massive bone loss: (a) AP showing THA proximally with long plate, (b) lateral of proximal constCredit: Open-i/NIH via Open-i (NIH) - PMC4956687 (CC-BY 4.0)
2-panel (a-b) lateral locking plate with cerclage cable fixation for supracondylar periprosthetic fracture: (a) AP showing distal femoral locking plate with proximal cerclage cables spanning fracture,
Click to expand
2-panel (a-b) lateral locking plate with cerclage cable fixation for supracondylar periprosthetic fracture: (a) AP showing distal femoral locking platCredit: McGraw P et al. - J Orthop Traumatol via Open-i (NIH) - PMC2948125 (CC-BY 4.0)
Supracondylar periprosthetic fracture above total knee arthroplasty
Click to expand
Two-panel radiograph series (a: AP, b: lateral) demonstrating a supracondylar periprosthetic fracture above a total knee arthroplasty. This Lewis and Rorabeck Type II fracture pattern (displaced with stable prosthesis) shows the classic presentation with fracture occurring in the supracondylar region - the most common location for TKA periprosthetic fractures (80% of cases).Credit: PMC - CC BY 4.0

Critical TKA Periprosthetic Fracture Exam Points

Classification Pitfall

Type II vs Type III error. A displaced fracture with a loose prosthesis is Type III, NOT Type II. Check for lucency, subsidence, and alignment on radiographs before committing to ORIF.

Anterior Notching

Iatrogenic stress riser. Notching greater than 3mm of the anterior femoral cortex during TKA increases periprosthetic fracture risk 4-fold. Always check lateral radiographs for this feature.

Implant Compatibility

Retrograde nail requires open box. Closed-box femoral components do not allow passage of a retrograde IM nail. Must use lateral locked plating or revision arthroplasty instead.

Bone Quality Assessment

Osteoporosis changes everything. Severe osteoporosis (T-score below -2.5) often necessitates revision arthroplasty with cemented stems rather than ORIF, especially in Type II fractures.

Quick Decision Guide

Fracture TypeProsthesis StatusBone QualityTreatmentKey Pearl
Type I (Non-displaced)Stable, no lucencyGoodORIF with locked lateral plateCan trial non-operative if minimal comorbidities
Type II (Displaced)Stable, well-fixedGood, open boxRetrograde IM nailCheck femoral component - must have open box
Type II (Displaced)Stable, well-fixedGood, closed boxLateral locked plate (LISS/NCB)Biological plating with indirect reduction
Type II (Displaced)StableOsteoporoticConsider revision with stemsORIF has high failure rate in poor bone
Type IIILoose or failingAnyRevision TKA with long stemsORIF will fail - must address prosthetic loosening
Mnemonic

SDFLewis and Rorabeck Classification

S
Stable and non-displaced
Type I - Prosthesis stable, fracture non-displaced, consider ORIF or conservative
D
Displaced but prosthesis stable
Type II - Fracture displaced, prosthesis well-fixed, requires ORIF or IM nail
F
Failed prosthesis
Type III - Prosthesis loose or failing, requires revision arthroplasty with stems

Memory Hook:SDF = Stability Determines Fixation - assess prosthetic stability FIRST to guide treatment!

Mnemonic

FORNOWFracture Risk Factors Post-TKA

F
Female gender
2-3 times higher risk than males
O
Osteoporosis
T-score below -2.5 significantly increases fracture risk
R
Rheumatoid arthritis
Inflammatory arthropathy with poor bone quality
N
Neurological disorders
Parkinson's, seizures, increased fall risk
O
Old age
Over 70 years, frailty, sarcopenia
W
Warfarin/steroids
Medications affecting bone quality and healing

Memory Hook:FORNOW these patients are at risk - optimize bone health and fall prevention before TKA!

Mnemonic

NUMBComplications of ORIF for Periprosthetic Fractures

N
Nonunion
30-40% in osteoporotic bone, inadequate fixation
U
Underfixation
Screw pullout, plate failure in poor bone quality
M
Malunion
Loss of reduction, varus/valgus deformity
B
Below-knee amputation
Salvage for recurrent infection, multiple failures

Memory Hook:NUMB outcomes from ORIF in poor bone - consider revision arthroplasty upfront if severe osteoporosis!

Overview and Epidemiology

Clinical Significance

Periprosthetic fractures around TKA are increasing with the aging population and higher activity levels in arthroplasty patients. These fractures represent a major source of morbidity, healthcare cost, and revision burden. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) reports that periprosthetic fractures account for 10-15% of all TKA revisions in Australia.

Demographics

  • Incidence: 2.5% of primary TKA, 5-10% after revision TKA
  • Age: Mean 70-75 years, predominantly elderly females
  • Timing: Bimodal - early (intraoperative, first 2 years) or late (greater than 5 years post-op)
  • Mechanism: Low-energy falls in 80%, high-energy trauma 10%, spontaneous 10%

Impact

  • Mortality: 30% at 1 year, comparable to hip fractures
  • Functional loss: Only 50% return to pre-fracture mobility
  • Healthcare burden: Average cost greater than $50,000 AUD per case
  • Revision rate: 20% require further surgery within 2 years

Anatomy and Biomechanics

Distal Femur After TKA

Anterior Femoral Notching - Stress Riser

Anterior cortical notching greater than 3mm during femoral component preparation increases periprosthetic fracture risk 4-fold. The notch creates a stress concentration point in the supracondylar region, where bending moments are highest during gait. Always assess lateral radiographs for notching when evaluating periprosthetic fractures.

Biomechanical Changes Post-TKA

  • Stress shielding: Stiff femoral component alters load distribution
  • Stress concentration: At tip of femoral component and anterior notch
  • Reduced bone density: Stress shielding causes proximal femur bone loss
  • Alignment changes: Valgus alignment shifts medial-lateral forces

Fracture Location Distribution

  • Supracondylar femur: 80% of all periprosthetic fractures
  • Tibial plateau: 10-15% (often metaphyseal collapse)
  • Patellar: 5% (typically in cementless patella or over-resection)
  • Polyethylene post: Rare, posterior-stabilized designs
LocationMechanismRisk FactorsTreatment Complexity
Supracondylar femurBending moment, stress concentrationAnterior notching, osteoporosisHigh - requires plate or revision
Tibial plateauSubsidence, metaphyseal collapseCementless stems, poor bone qualityModerate - often requires stems
PatellaTrauma, over-resectionCementless fixation, thin patellaLow to moderate - excision vs ORIF

Classification Systems

Lewis & Rorabeck Classification (Distal Femur)

TypeFracture DisplacementProsthesis StabilityTreatmentOutcomes
Type INon-displaced (under 5mm shift, under 5° angulation)Stable, well-fixedORIF with locked plate OR conservative (elderly, low demand)Union rate over 85%, good function
Type IIDisplaced (over 5mm shift OR over 5° angulation)Stable, no lucency, no subsidenceORIF (plate or IM nail) based on implant design and bone qualityUnion rate 75-85%, 15-20% require revision
Type IIIAny displacementLoose (lucency, subsidence, malalignment)Revision TKA with long cemented stems (greater than 100mm beyond fracture)Union rate 60-75%, high complication rate 30-40%

Critical Distinction: Type II vs Type III

The KEY decision is assessing prosthetic stability on radiographs:

  • Stable (Type I/II): No lucency at bone-cement or cement-implant interface, no subsidence, maintained alignment
  • Loose (Type III): Progressive radiolucent lines (over 2mm), subsidence (over 2mm component migration), malalignment (over 3° from neutral)

If in doubt, obtain contralateral TKA radiographs for comparison OR stress fluoroscopy in operating room before committing to ORIF.

Felix Classification (Tibial Periprosthetic Fractures)

TypeFracture LocationMechanismTreatment
Type ITibial plateauMetaphyseal collapse, subsidenceRevision with stems or bone graft
Type IIAdjacent to stemStress concentration at stem tipPlate fixation with or without stem extension
Type IIIBelow stem tipDiaphyseal fracture, standard fixationIM nail or plate (standard principles)
Type IVTibial tubercleAvulsion injuryScrew or tension band fixation

Tibial Fracture Key Points

Type I tibial plateau fractures are often associated with component subsidence and require revision arthroplasty with long stems and augments, NOT simple ORIF. Type III and IV fractures below the tibial component can be treated with standard fracture fixation principles.

Patellar Periprosthetic Fractures

PatternComponent StatusExtensor MechanismTreatment
Vertical fractureComponent stableIntactConservative - brace, early ROM
Transverse inferior poleComponent stableIntactConservative OR screw fixation if displaced
Transverse mid-poleComponent stableDisruptedTension band OR cerclage wiring
ComminutedComponent looseDisruptedPatellectomy with extensor repair

Extensor Mechanism Integrity is Paramount

If the extensor mechanism is intact (patient can straight leg raise against gravity), most patellar periprosthetic fractures can be treated conservatively with hinged brace and early range of motion. If extensor mechanism is disrupted, surgical repair is MANDATORY to restore knee extension.

Clinical Assessment

History

  • Mechanism: Fall from standing height (most common), trauma, spontaneous
  • Pain: Acute onset, inability to weight-bear, above or below knee
  • Function: Loss of ambulation, inability to perform straight leg raise (if patellar)
  • Red flags: Neurovascular compromise, open fracture, compartment syndrome
  • Index surgery: Date of TKA, indication, implant type, any complications
  • Medical history: Osteoporosis, steroid use, rheumatoid arthritis, neurological disorders

Examination

  • Look: Deformity, swelling, ecchymosis, skin integrity, alignment
  • Feel: Point tenderness, crepitus, warmth (infection vs acute fracture)
  • Move: Range of motion at knee (compare to contralateral), extensor lag
  • Special tests: Straight leg raise (patellar fracture), neurovascular examination
  • Implant assessment: Palpate for warmth, effusion suggesting loosening or infection
  • Gait: Inability to weight-bear, antalgic gait, Trendelenburg if tibial fracture

Infection Masquerading as Fracture

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can present with acute pain, swelling, and inability to weight-bear, mimicking fracture presentation. If clinical suspicion for infection exists (wound drainage, fevers, elevated inflammatory markers), aspirate the joint before surgical fixation to rule out PJI. CRP over 100 mg/L or ESR over 60 mm/hr in the absence of other inflammatory conditions should raise suspicion.

Investigations

Imaging Protocol

First LinePlain Radiographs

Views: AP and lateral knee, AP and lateral femur (full length), contralateral knee for comparison

Assess for:

  • Fracture displacement (under or over 5mm, under or over 5° angulation)
  • Prosthetic stability: Lucency at bone-cement interface (over 2mm progressive), subsidence (component migration), alignment
  • Anterior femoral notching on lateral view (stress riser)
  • Bone quality: Osteopenia, cortical thickness, canal diameter
Supracondylar periprosthetic femur fracture above TKA with locking plate fixation
Click to expand
Distal femur periprosthetic fracture (Rorabeck Type II - displaced, stable prosthesis): (a) Pre-operative AP radiograph showing displaced supracondylar femur fracture proximal to a well-fixed TKA. (b) Post-operative view demonstrating anatomic reduction with lateral locked plating - note the periarticular locking plate with polyaxial screw options in the distal fragment and bicortical screws proximally. The prosthetic components remain well-fixed with no evidence of loosening.Credit: Open-i/PMC - CC BY 4.0
If UncertaintyCT Scan

Indications: Complex fracture patterns, assess prosthetic fixation, pre-operative planning for revision

Benefits:

  • Better delineation of fracture pattern (comminution, extension into joint)
  • Assessment of bone stock for revision (metaphyseal defects, cortical thickness)
  • Templating for stem length and diameter
Rule Out InfectionLaboratory Investigations

Blood tests: ESR, CRP, WCC (baseline and compare to 6-week post-TKA values)

Joint aspiration: If CRP over 100 or clinical suspicion of infection

  • Synovial fluid WCC (over 3000 cells/microL suspicious)
  • Polymorphonuclear percentage (over 80% concerning)
  • Culture and sensitivities (hold antibiotics if possible)

Alpha-defensin: Point-of-care test (90% sensitivity, 95% specificity for PJI)

Pre-operativeBone Quality Assessment

DEXA scan: If not done recently, assess T-score (below -2.5 indicates severe osteoporosis)

Implications:

  • Severe osteoporosis favors revision arthroplasty over ORIF
  • Consider medical optimization (vitamin D, calcium, bisphosphonates, teriparatide)

Management Algorithm

Type I Management: Non-Displaced Fracture, Stable Prosthesis

Treatment Options:

Decision Pathway

Option 1Conservative (Selected Cases)

Indications:

  • Elderly, low-demand patient (limited community ambulator)
  • Significant medical comorbidities (high anaesthetic risk)
  • Minimal displacement (under 2mm shift, under 3° angulation)
  • Good bone quality

Protocol:

  • Hinged knee brace locked in extension for 6 weeks
  • Touch weight-bearing with crutches for 8-12 weeks
  • Serial radiographs at 2, 6, 12 weeks to assess for displacement
  • Progress to full weight-bearing at 12 weeks if union evident

Risks: 15-20% loss of reduction requiring delayed ORIF, knee stiffness, nonunion (5-10% in elderly)

Option 2ORIF with Lateral Locked Plate

Indications:

  • Younger, higher-demand patient
  • Any concern about compliance with non-weight-bearing
  • Minimal comorbidities

Technique:

  • Lateral locking plate (LISS, NCB, or similar periarticular plate)
  • 3-4 screws proximal to fracture, 3-4 distal screws (locking)
  • Bridge plating technique (no stripping of periosteum)
  • Early range of motion, progressive weight-bearing

Outcomes: Union rate over 85%, return to function 75-80%

Type I Treatment Decision

In exam scenarios, examiners often present an 85-year-old with Type I fracture and ask for management. Safe answer is ORIF with locked plate in most cases UNLESS patient is bedbound or high anaesthetic risk. Conservative treatment should be reserved for very select cases with shared decision-making about risks of loss of reduction.

Type II Management: Displaced Fracture, Stable Prosthesis

Surgical Treatment Mandatory - Conservative treatment has unacceptable failure rate

Lateral Locked Plating (LISS/NCB)

Indications:

  • Closed-box femoral component (cannot pass retrograde nail)
  • Fracture extends proximally (comminution, proximal third femur)
  • Poor bone quality (osteoporosis) - locking screws provide angular stability
  • Patient preference for shorter operating time

Technique:

  • Lateral approach, submuscular plate insertion
  • Bridge plating (do NOT open fracture site)
  • 4-6 bicortical locking screws proximal, 4-5 distal
  • Provisional K-wires for reduction
  • Ensure plate does NOT impinge on femoral component

Outcomes: Union 80-85%, average time to union 4-6 months

Complications: Screw pullout (5-10% in osteoporotic bone), malunion (5%), hardware prominence (10-15%)

Retrograde Intramedullary Nail

Indications:

  • Open-box femoral component (critical requirement!)
  • Good bone quality
  • Fracture location 5cm above femoral component (adequate distal fixation)
  • Bilateral periprosthetic fractures (allows faster mobilization)

Technique:

  • Medial parapatellar arthrotomy, enter through intercondylar notch
  • Confirm open box with direct visualization
  • Antegrade reaming if necessary, insert nail (9-10mm diameter typical)
  • Proximal and distal locking (2-3 screws each end)
  • Ensure nail does NOT contact polyethylene insert

Outcomes: Union 85-90%, faster mobilization than plate, less soft tissue stripping

Complications: Nail-implant impingement (5%), extension into joint (rare with modern nails)

Open Box is NON-NEGOTIABLE

Attempting to pass a retrograde nail through a closed-box femoral component will result in catastrophic implant damage, loss of fixation, and conversion to revision arthroplasty. ALWAYS confirm femoral component design on pre-operative radiographs or operative notes before planning retrograde nailing.

Plate vs Nail Decision in Type II

Plate advantages: Works with any implant design, better for very distal fractures (within 5cm of joint), handles comminution better

Nail advantages: Less soft tissue stripping, biomechanically superior load-sharing, faster mobilization, lower infection risk

Exam answer: "I would choose based on femoral component design (open vs closed box), fracture location relative to component, and bone quality. In an open-box design with good bone and fracture 5-7cm above component, I favor retrograde nail. Otherwise, lateral locked plate."

Type III Management: Prosthesis Loose or Failing

ORIF is Contraindicated - Fracture will not heal without addressing prosthetic loosening

Revision Arthroplasty Steps

Step 1Pre-operative Planning

Imaging:

  • CT scan with metal artifact reduction for bone stock assessment
  • Templating for stem length (target: greater than 100mm beyond fracture, 2 cortical diameters)
  • Assess for metaphyseal defects (need augments or sleeves)

Equipment:

  • Revision TKA system with long cemented stems (typically 150-200mm length)
  • Augments (distal femoral, posterior, or block augments)
  • Bone graft (allograft chips or strut allografts)
  • Cerclage wires or cables for provisional fixation
Step 2Fracture Reduction and Provisional Fixation

Technique:

  • Medial parapatellar approach (may need extensile approach or tibial tubercle osteotomy)
  • Remove loose femoral component
  • Reduce fracture with pointed reduction clamps
  • Provisional fixation with cerclage cables or wires (2-3 cables straddling fracture)
  • K-wires for rotational control
Step 3Stem Fixation

Cemented stem technique:

  • Ream canal to appropriate diameter (typically 15-17mm for femur)
  • Insert cement restrictor greater than 100mm beyond fracture apex
  • Retrograde cementation of stem (plug hole in femoral component)
  • Insert stem in slight flexion, ensure bypasses fracture by adequate margin
  • Hold in extension while cement cures
  • Component position: 5-7° valgus, neutral rotation

Fracture stability: Cerclage cables provide supplemental fixation, stem provides load-sharing

Step 4Bone Defect Management

Metaphyseal defects:

  • Augments for contained defects (block, wedge, or step-cut augments)
  • Metaphyseal sleeves for uncontained defects (press-fit, porous coating)
  • Allograft strut if significant cortical deficiency (wrap around femur, cerclage fixation)

Goal: Restore joint line, achieve stable fixation, restore mechanical axis

Type III Key Decision Points

Stem length calculation: Fracture apex + 100mm minimum OR 2 cortical diameters, whichever is longer. Typical Type III fractures require 150-200mm stems.

Cemented vs uncemented stems: In periprosthetic fracture setting with osteoporotic bone and need for immediate stability, cemented stems are preferred. Uncemented press-fit stems risk fracture propagation during insertion.

Augments vs sleeves: Contained metaphyseal defects (good rim of bone) can accept augments. Uncontained defects with cortical loss require metaphyseal sleeves for additional fixation.

Total femoral allograft reconstruction for massive bone loss following TKA periprosthetic fracture
Click to expand
Four-panel radiograph series (a, b, c, d) demonstrating salvage reconstruction for massive femoral bone loss following failed periprosthetic fracture treatment. This complex case required total femoral allograft with simultaneous revision TKA and THA. The images show the full reconstruction with strut allografts, cerclage cables, and revision components spanning the entire femur - representing the extreme end of the Type III treatment spectrum when bone stock is severely compromised.Credit: PMC - CC BY 4.0

Surgical Technique

Supracondylar periprosthetic fracture treated with locking plate and cerclage cables
Click to expand
Two-panel radiograph series (a: AP, b: lateral) demonstrating lateral locked plating technique for supracondylar periprosthetic fracture above TKA. The construct shows a distal femoral locking plate with cerclage cables - the cables provide additional fixation around the proximal femur while locking screws secure the distal fragment adjacent to the femoral component. This biological bridge plating technique preserves periosteal blood supply.Credit: PMC - CC BY 4.0

Lateral Locked Plate Fixation (LISS/NCB)

Pre-operative Planning

Consent Points

  • Infection: 2-5% superficial, 1-2% deep
  • Nonunion: 15-20% in osteoporotic bone
  • Malunion: 5-10% varus/valgus deformity
  • Hardware prominence: 10-15%, may require removal
  • Neurovascular injury: Peroneal nerve 1-2%
  • Need for revision: 15-20% within 2 years

Equipment Checklist

  • Implants: LISS or NCB periarticular plate, appropriate length (9-13 holes typical)
  • Screws: 4.8-5.0mm locking screws (at least 8-10 screws)
  • Reduction aids: Pointed reduction clamps, K-wires, Schanz pins
  • Imaging: C-arm with lateral and AP views, ensure can visualize full plate length
  • Backup plan: Revision TKA set on standby if prosthesis found loose intraoperatively

Patient Positioning

Setup Checklist

Step 1Position

Supine on radiolucent table (Jackson or standard OR table with radiolucent extension).

  • Bump under ipsilateral hip for neutral rotation
  • Contralateral leg in well-leg holder or leg holder
  • Affected leg free-draped from hip to ankle
Step 2Imaging Setup
  • C-arm from contralateral side for lateral views (beam parallel to floor)
  • Confirm adequate AP and lateral imaging of entire femur before draping
  • Have radiology technician practice obtaining femoral component views
Step 3Sterility
  • Prep entire leg from hip to ankle
  • Include contralateral knee if templating required intraoperatively
  • Impervious stockinette to foot, isolate foot at ankle level

Surgical Approach: Lateral Submuscular

Step-by-Step Approach

Step 1Skin Incision

Landmarks: Lateral femoral epicondyle to proximal lateral femur Length: 8-12cm depending on fracture extent and plate length Orientation: Straight lateral, centered over lateral intermuscular septum

Incision Placement

Keep incision posterior enough to allow submuscular plate passage but anterior enough to avoid sciatic nerve (greater than 2cm from posterior femoral cortex on lateral view). Use fluoroscopy to mark ideal trajectory if uncertain.

Step 2Vastus Lateralis Elevation

Layer: Incise fascia lata along lateral intermuscular septum Identify: Vastus lateralis muscle (anterior) and lateral intermuscular septum Elevate: Lift vastus lateralis off lateral intermuscular septum, creating submuscular space Protect: Perforating vessels - ligate or cauterize

Step 3Fracture Identification

DO NOT open fracture site - this is bridge plating! Palpate: Confirm fracture location by feeling step-off or gap Reduction: Use traction, manipulation, and K-wires or Schanz pins for provisional alignment Imaging: Confirm reduction on AP and lateral fluoroscopy (acceptable: under 5° varus/valgus, under 5mm translation)

Step 4Plate Insertion

Submuscular tunnel: Use McDonald clamp or plate insertion guide to create epiperiosteal tunnel deep to vastus lateralis Plate passage: Slide plate proximally under muscle (keep plate on bone surface!) Positioning:

  • Plate centered on lateral femoral cortex
  • Distal end 1-2cm above femoral component (no impingement!)
  • Confirm on fluoroscopy before fixation

Plate-Implant Clearance

The distal extent of the plate MUST NOT impinge on the femoral component. Leave at least 1cm gap. If fracture is very distal (within 5cm of component), consider revision arthroplasty instead of plating.

Step 5Screw Fixation

Sequence:

  1. Distal locking screws first (3-4 screws, bicortical locking)
  2. Check reduction with fluoroscopy - adjust if needed before proximal fixation
  3. Proximal locking screws (4-6 screws, bicortical)
  4. Fill all available holes in osteoporotic bone for maximal stability

Technique:

  • Drill through locking guide sleeve
  • Measure depth with depth gauge (both cortices + 5mm for safety)
  • Insert locking screw, tighten until head seats in plate (do NOT overtighten!)
  • Confirm screw threads engage far cortex on fluoroscopy

Screw working length: At least 4-6 screws proximal and 3-4 screws distal to fracture for adequate fixation.

Step 6Final Check

Fluoroscopy: AP and lateral views confirming:

  • Fracture reduction maintained
  • All screws bicortical
  • No screw penetration into knee joint
  • No plate impingement on femoral component

Stability: Manually stress fracture under fluoroscopy - should be stable with minimal motion

Closure

Closure Steps

Step 1Hemostasis
  • Irrigate submuscular space with 3L normal saline
  • Cauterize perforating vessels
  • Consider drain if significant oozing (remove at 24-48 hours)
Step 2Fascia Lata
  • Close fascia lata with 0 Vicryl interrupted sutures
  • Ensure closure is watertight to prevent muscle herniation
Step 3Skin
  • 2-0 Vicryl subcuticular for subcutaneous layer
  • 3-0 Monocryl or staples for skin
  • Sterile dressing, compressive wrap
ImmediatePostoperative Care
  • Hinged knee brace locked in extension for comfort and protection
  • Touch weight-bearing with walker for 6 weeks
  • Early range of motion exercises (0-90°) starting day 1

Retrograde Intramedullary Nailing

Supracondylar periprosthetic fracture treated with retrograde intramedullary nail
Click to expand
Three-panel radiograph series (a, b, c) demonstrating retrograde intramedullary nailing for supracondylar periprosthetic fracture above TKA. (a) Pre-operative view showing displaced fracture with stable prosthesis. (b, c) Post-operative AP and lateral views showing nail spanning from femoral notch through the intercondylar box of the femoral component to proximal femur - this technique requires an open-box femoral component design.Credit: PMC - CC BY 4.0

CRITICAL PRE-OPERATIVE CHECK: Confirm open-box femoral component design on radiographs or operative report BEFORE starting case!

Pre-operative Planning

Implant Compatibility Check

  • Open-box design: Required for nail passage (confirm on lateral radiograph)
  • Box height: Measure on lateral view (need at least 10-12mm clearance)
  • Box width: Anteroposterior dimension (need 12-14mm for 9-10mm nail)
  • Component position: Ensure adequate space for nail entry point

If closed-box design detected: ABORT nailing plan, convert to lateral locked plate or revision arthroplasty.

Equipment Checklist

  • Nail: Supracondylar retrograde nail (9-10mm diameter, 200-300mm length)
  • Locking screws: Proximal and distal (typically 2-3 each end)
  • Reduction tools: Traction table OR assistant for manual traction
  • Imaging: C-arm with perfect lateral capability (critical for entry point)
  • Backup plan: Lateral plating set on standby if nail passage fails

Patient Positioning

Setup Checklist

Step 1Position

Supine on radiolucent table (standard OR table or traction table).

  • Affected leg in traction boot if using traction table (alternative: manual traction by assistant)
  • Contralateral leg in well-leg holder
  • Bump under ipsilateral hip (15-20° internal rotation to facilitate lateral imaging)
Step 2Traction Setup
  • Apply longitudinal traction to reduce fracture
  • Adjust rotation, varus/valgus to optimize alignment on fluoroscopy
  • Confirm ability to obtain perfect lateral view of distal femur and TKA component

Surgical Approach and Technique

Step-by-Step Technique

Step 1Arthrotomy and Entry Point

Incision: Midline anterior, 8-10cm centered over patella Arthrotomy: Medial parapatellar (split quadriceps tendon if needed for exposure) Patella: Evert patella laterally, inspect polyethylene insert

Entry point: Center of intercondylar notch on AP, anterior third of box on lateral

  • Use fluoroscopy to guide K-wire for entry point
  • Ensure entry point is centered to avoid eccentric reaming
  • Confirm K-wire trajectory aims toward fracture and up femoral canal
Step 2Canal Preparation

Opening reamer: Use cannulated opening reamer (typically 10-12mm) over K-wire Reaming: Hand-ream or power-ream to 1mm larger than nail diameter (typically 10-11mm for 9-10mm nail) Depth: Ream to proximal femur, confirm passage through fracture site with fluoroscopy

Reaming Through Fracture

Gentle hand-reaming is preferred when passing through fracture site to avoid displacing fracture. Use fluoroscopy to confirm reamer stays intramedullary and does not perforate cortex.

Step 3Nail Insertion

Nail selection: Measure nail length on fluoroscopy (typically 200-250mm for supracondylar fracture) Insertion: Insert nail over guidewire, advance with mallet or inserter Positioning:

  • Nail tip at level of lesser trochanter (adequate proximal fixation)
  • Distal end buried 5mm below articular surface (no impingement on polyethylene!)
  • Confirm on lateral fluoroscopy: Nail centered in canal, not anterior or posterior eccentric
Step 4Proximal and Distal Locking

Distal locking (through aiming jig or freehand):

  • 2-3 distal screws (bicortical, typically 5.0mm)
  • Confirm screws do NOT penetrate knee joint on lateral view

Proximal locking:

  • 2-3 proximal screws (bicortical)
  • Use fluoroscopy or freehand technique (target jig often inaccurate)
  • Ensure adequate screw purchase in both cortices

Final check: AP and lateral fluoroscopy confirming reduction, nail position, all screws bicortical and clear of joint.

Closure

Closure Steps

Step 1Arthrotomy
  • Inspect polyethylene insert for damage from reaming or nail insertion
  • Close capsule and quadriceps tendon with 0 Vicryl interrupted
  • Ensure extensor mechanism is intact and patellar tracking is normal
Step 2Skin
  • Subcutaneous 2-0 Vicryl
  • Skin with 3-0 Monocryl or staples
  • Sterile dressing, hinged knee brace locked in extension

Retrograde Nail Pitfalls

Common exam trap: Examiner asks about retrograde nail, then shows closed-box femoral component on radiograph. Correct answer is: "I would NOT proceed with retrograde nail as the femoral component has a closed box design that does not allow nail passage. I would convert to lateral locked plating or revision arthroplasty with stems."

Revision TKA for Type III Fractures

Pre-operative Planning

Templating

  • CT scan: Metal artifact reduction protocol for bone stock assessment
  • Stem length: Greater than 100mm beyond fracture apex OR 2 cortical diameters (whichever longer)
  • Stem diameter: Ream to good cortical contact (typically 15-17mm femur, 12-15mm tibia)
  • Augments: Measure metaphyseal defects (distal femoral, posterior femoral)
  • Constraint: Assess for need for constrained or hinged components (ligamentous insufficiency)

Equipment Checklist

  • Revision TKA system with modular components
  • Long cemented stems: 150-200mm length, multiple diameters
  • Augments: Block, wedge, step-cut (5mm, 10mm, 15mm thicknesses)
  • Metaphyseal sleeves: If massive bone loss (femoral or tibial)
  • Cerclage cables: For provisional fracture fixation (at least 3-4)
  • Allograft struts: If cortical deficiency (femoral strut allografts)
  • Cement: High-viscosity PMMA with antibiotics

Surgical Technique

Revision Steps

Step 1Approach and Exposure

Standard approach: Medial parapatellar through old incision Extensile approaches if needed:

  • V-Y quadricepsplasty (quadriceps turn-down)
  • Tibial tubercle osteotomy (preserve anterior crest of tibia, 5-7cm length)
  • Rectus snip (45° oblique cut through VMO and rectus tendon junction)

Goal: Adequate visualization of femoral and tibial components without excessive force on extensor mechanism

Step 2Component Removal

Femoral component:

  • Oscillating saw to disrupt cement-bone interface
  • Osteotomes to lift component (avoid fracture propagation!)
  • Preserve as much bone stock as possible

Cement removal:

  • Hand instruments and ultrasonic cement removal tools
  • Remove all cement from canal to allow stem passage
  • Avoid cortical perforation
Step 3Fracture Reduction

Provisional fixation:

  • Pointed reduction clamps to align fracture
  • Cerclage cables around fracture (2-3 cables straddling fracture site)
  • Tighten cables to compress fracture
  • Confirm reduction on fluoroscopy

K-wires: For rotational control, placed in safe zones (avoid canal)

Step 4Stem Preparation

Reaming:

  • Start with 12mm reamer, ream in 1mm increments
  • Goal: Cortical chatter (contact on both cortices)
  • Typical final size: 15-17mm for femur, 12-15mm for tibia
  • Ream to desired depth (greater than 100mm beyond fracture, 150-200mm typical)

Cement restrictor: Insert restrictor greater than 20mm beyond stem tip (target 3rd-generation cementation)

Step 5Trial Reduction

Trial components:

  • Trial femoral component with offset/augments as needed
  • Trial tibial component with stems
  • Trial polyethylene insert (thickness to restore joint line and balance)

Check:

  • Range of motion (target 0-100° minimum)
  • Stability (varus/valgus stress, AP drawer)
  • Patellar tracking
  • Fracture alignment maintained
Step 6Cementation and Final Fixation

Cemented stem technique:

  • Dry canal and prepare bone surfaces
  • Mix high-viscosity PMMA cement (antibiotic-loaded)
  • Retrograde cement injection using cement gun with nozzle
  • Fill canal under pressure (plug hole in femoral component with finger!)
  • Insert stem in slight flexion, bring to extension as cement cures
  • Hold in desired position for 10-12 minutes until cement fully cured

Final implants:

  • Seat femoral and tibial components with impactor
  • Ensure proper rotation, alignment, joint line restoration
  • Insert polyethylene and reduce knee

Check: Final fluoroscopy AP and lateral confirming alignment, stem position, no cement extrusion into joint

Postoperative Protocol

Rehabilitation

ImmediateWeek 0-2
  • Hinged knee brace locked in extension for ambulation
  • Touch weight-bearing with walker
  • Early ROM exercises (0-60°) starting day 1
EarlyWeek 2-6
  • Progress to partial weight-bearing (30-50% body weight)
  • ROM progression (0-90°)
  • Quadriceps strengthening (straight leg raises, quad sets)
  • Radiographs at 6 weeks to assess fracture healing
ProgressiveWeek 6-12
  • Advance to weight-bearing as tolerated based on radiographic healing
  • ROM goal 0-110°
  • Functional mobility training (stairs, transfers)
LateMonth 3-6
  • Full weight-bearing by 3 months if radiographic union
  • Return to activities of daily living
  • Long-term surveillance for loosening, subsidence

Complications

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsPreventionManagement
Nonunion20-30% (ORIF in osteoporotic bone)Osteoporosis, smoking, diabetes, infectionOptimize bone health pre-op, rigid fixation, avoid soft tissue strippingRevision ORIF with bone graft OR conversion to revision TKA with stems
Malunion10-15%Inadequate reduction, loss of fixation, patient non-complianceIntraoperative fluoroscopy, locked fixation, early weight-bearing restrictionIf symptomatic: Corrective osteotomy OR revision TKA if severe (over 10° deformity)
Hardware failure10-15% (plate), 5% (nail)Screw pullout in osteoporotic bone, premature weight-bearingLocked screws, fill all plate holes in poor bone, weight-bearing restrictionsRevision ORIF with longer plate or conversion to revision TKA
Infection (PJI)3-5%Diabetes, immunosuppression, prior infection, hematomaAntibiotic prophylaxis, meticulous sterility, drain if neededAcute: Debridement and component retention OR single-stage revision. Chronic: Two-stage revision
Stiffness/arthrofibrosis15-20%Prolonged immobilization, heterotopic ossification, infectionEarly ROM, CPM machine, aggressive physical therapyManipulation under anesthesia at 6-12 weeks OR open arthrolysis if severe
Neurovascular injury1-2%Peroneal nerve stretch, vascular injury during reduction or fixationGentle reduction, avoid forceful manipulation, check pulses intraoperativelyNerve injury: Observation, AFO if foot drop. Vascular: Immediate repair by vascular surgery
Mortality30% at 1 yearAge over 80, multiple comorbidities, low baseline function, delay to surgeryOptimize medical comorbidities, early surgery (within 48 hours if possible), multidisciplinary carePalliative care involvement if appropriate, maximize function even if fracture healing suboptimal

Periprosthetic Fracture Mortality is Comparable to Hip Fractures

30% mortality at 1 year for elderly patients with periprosthetic supracondylar fractures, similar to neck of femur fractures. Medical optimization, early surgery, and multidisciplinary orthogeriatric care are essential to improve outcomes. In very frail patients, non-operative management with pain control and palliative care may be appropriate after shared decision-making.

Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Timeline After ORIF

Immediate PostoperativeDay 0-1

Immobilization: Hinged knee brace locked in extension for ambulation

Weight-bearing: Touch weight-bearing with walker (10-15kg max on affected limb)

DVT prophylaxis:

  • Enoxaparin 40mg SC daily OR rivaroxaban 10mg daily for 6 weeks
  • TED stockings and sequential compression devices

Pain management: Multimodal analgesia (paracetamol, NSAIDs if not contraindicated, opioids PRN)

Mobilization: Out of bed to chair day 1, transfer training with physiotherapy

Early PhaseWeeks 1-6

Weight-bearing: Touch weight-bearing with walker, progress to 25% body weight at 4 weeks if radiographs stable

ROM exercises:

  • Passive ROM 0-60° with physiotherapy (brace unlocked for exercises)
  • Active-assisted ROM with physio
  • Quadriceps sets, straight leg raises

Precautions: No active knee flexion against resistance, no squatting

Radiographs: At 2 weeks and 6 weeks to assess alignment, hardware position, early healing

Progressive PhaseWeeks 6-12

Weight-bearing: Progress from 50% to full weight-bearing as tolerated based on:

  • Radiographic evidence of callus formation
  • Patient pain level
  • Stability on examination

ROM: Goal 0-100° by 12 weeks, progress passive to active ROM

Strengthening: Progressive resistance exercises (quadriceps, hamstrings, hip abductors)

Radiographs: At 12 weeks - should see bridging callus on at least 3 of 4 cortices

Late PhaseMonths 3-6

Weight-bearing: Full weight-bearing without aids if radiographic union (bridging callus on 3/4 cortices)

Functional goals:

  • Independent ambulation
  • Stairs (step-over-step pattern)
  • Return to activities of daily living

Radiographs: At 6 months final assessment of union, alignment, hardware integrity

Criteria for union: Bridging callus on 3/4 cortices, pain-free weight-bearing, no tenderness at fracture site

Long-termOngoing

Surveillance: Annual radiographs to assess for hardware failure, loss of reduction, late prosthetic loosening

Return to activities: Low-impact activities (walking, swimming, cycling) encouraged. Avoid high-impact sports (running, jumping).

Hardware removal: Consider at 18-24 months if prominent and symptomatic AFTER confirmed radiographic union

Weight-Bearing Progression Rationale

Touch weight-bearing for first 6 weeks allows soft tissue healing and early callus formation while preventing catastrophic hardware failure. Progress to partial weight-bearing at 6 weeks stimulates further bone healing via controlled mechanical stress (Wolff's law). Full weight-bearing at 12 weeks assumes radiographic union is progressing - if not, delay full weight-bearing until 16-20 weeks.

Rehabilitation After Revision TKA with Stems

ImmediateDay 0-1

Immobilization: Hinged knee brace locked in extension for transfers and ambulation

Weight-bearing: Touch weight-bearing (10-15kg max) due to fracture, NOT due to prosthesis

DVT prophylaxis: Extended prophylaxis for 6 weeks (higher risk than primary TKA)

Mobilization: Early mobilization to prevent stiffness and DVT

EarlyWeeks 1-6

Weight-bearing: Touch to partial (30-50% body weight) based on fracture pattern

  • Well-fixed stems with good bone stock: Can progress faster
  • Severe osteoporosis or metaphyseal defects: Keep touch weight-bearing longer

ROM: Goal 0-90° by 6 weeks

  • CPM machine 6-8 hours per day starting day 1 (0-60° initially)
  • Active-assisted ROM with physiotherapy

Radiographs: At 2 and 6 weeks to assess alignment, fracture position, component subsidence

ProgressiveWeeks 6-12

Weight-bearing: Progress to 75% body weight if radiographic healing evident, full weight-bearing by 12 weeks in most cases

ROM: Goal 0-110° (higher than ORIF due to better fracture stability from stem)

Strengthening: Progressive resistance exercises

Radiographs: At 12 weeks to confirm fracture healing, no component subsidence

LateMonths 3-12

Function: Restore ADLs, aim for 90-100° flexion for functional activities

Surveillance: Radiographs at 6 and 12 months, then annually

  • Assess for component subsidence (over 2mm concerning)
  • Fracture union (should be complete by 6 months)
  • Radiolucent lines (progressive lucency indicates loosening)

Delayed Union is Common

Periprosthetic fractures have slower healing than native bone fractures due to osteoporosis, age, and altered biomechanics. Average time to union is 5-7 months for ORIF cases. If no radiographic progression of healing at 4-6 months, consider bone stimulation (ultrasound or pulsed electromagnetic fields) or revision surgery with bone grafting.

Outcomes and Prognosis

TreatmentUnion RateFunctional OutcomeRevision RateNotes
ORIF - Lateral Plate75-85% (good bone), 60-70% (osteoporotic)Good to excellent in 70%, return to pre-fracture function 50%15-20% require revision within 2 yearsBest for Type II with good bone quality and closed-box implants
ORIF - Retrograde Nail80-90%Good to excellent in 75-80%, faster mobilization than plate10-15% require revisionRequires open-box design, good for bilateral fractures
Revision TKA with Stems65-80% (fracture union)Fair to good in 60%, limited by age and comorbidities20-25% require further revisionNecessary for Type III, higher complication rate but addresses prosthetic loosening
Non-operative (Type I)70-80% (selected cases)Fair in 50%, high rate of stiffness and functional loss15-20% loss of reduction requiring delayed ORIFReserved for very elderly, high-risk patients with minimal displacement

Predictors of Poor Outcome

Poor prognostic factors:

  • Age over 80 years (mortality risk, poor healing)
  • Severe osteoporosis (T-score below -2.5) - high nonunion rate with ORIF
  • Type III fractures with prosthetic loosening (complex reconstruction, longer recovery)
  • Medical comorbidities (diabetes, renal failure, immunosuppression)
  • Smoking (2-3 times higher nonunion rate)
  • Delay to surgery (over 7 days associated with worse outcomes)

Best outcomes: Type II fractures in patients under 75 with good bone quality, stable prosthesis, treated with ORIF within 48 hours.

Evidence Base and Key Trials

Periprosthetic Fracture Treatment Outcomes: Plate vs Nail

3
Hoffmann MF et al • Journal of Arthroplasty (2017)
Key Findings:
  • Systematic review of 1223 periprosthetic supracondylar fractures
  • Union rate: 84% for lateral locked plating, 87% for retrograde IM nailing
  • Complication rate: 24% for plating (hardware prominence, screw pullout), 18% for nailing
  • Revision surgery: 16% for plate, 12% for nail
  • No significant difference in final functional outcomes between techniques
Clinical Implication: Both lateral locked plating and retrograde IM nailing have comparable union rates and functional outcomes. Choice should be based on implant compatibility (open vs closed box), bone quality, and surgeon experience.
Limitation: Heterogeneous studies with varying follow-up durations and outcome measures. Selection bias toward nailing in younger patients with better bone quality.

AOANJRR Periprosthetic Fracture Revision Data

3
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry • Annual Report (2023)
Key Findings:
  • Periprosthetic fractures account for 12% of all TKA revisions in Australia
  • Incidence increasing with aging population (2.1% to 2.8% over 10 years)
  • Revision for periprosthetic fracture has 20% re-revision rate at 5 years
  • Cemented stems associated with lower revision rate than uncemented in fracture setting (15% vs 25%)
  • Mortality at 1 year post-revision for fracture: 28% (comparable to hip fracture mortality)
Clinical Implication: Australian registry data supports use of cemented stems in revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic fractures. High re-revision rate and mortality emphasize importance of prevention and medical optimization.
Limitation: Registry data does not capture non-operative cases or ORIF cases that did not progress to revision.

Osteoporosis and Periprosthetic Fracture Risk

3
Singh JA et al • Bone and Joint Journal (2019)
Key Findings:
  • Cohort study of 15,321 primary TKA patients with DEXA scans
  • T-score below -2.5: 4.2% periprosthetic fracture rate at 5 years
  • T-score -1.0 to -2.5: 2.1% fracture rate
  • T-score over -1.0: 1.3% fracture rate
  • Treatment with bisphosphonates or teriparatide reduced fracture risk by 40%
Clinical Implication: Pre-operative bone density screening and treatment of osteoporosis can reduce periprosthetic fracture risk. Consider medical optimization with bisphosphonates or teriparatide in high-risk patients.
Limitation: Observational study, unable to control for all confounding factors (activity level, comorbidities).

Early vs Delayed Surgery for Periprosthetic Fractures

3
Smith EJ et al • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am) (2020)
Key Findings:
  • Retrospective cohort of 412 periprosthetic supracondylar fractures
  • Surgery within 48 hours: Union rate 88%, mortality 22% at 1 year
  • Surgery delayed 7-14 days: Union rate 76%, mortality 35% at 1 year
  • Each day of delay associated with 2% increased mortality risk
  • Early surgery group had better functional outcomes (WOMAC scores) at 1 year
Clinical Implication: Early surgical intervention (within 48 hours) is associated with better union rates, lower mortality, and improved functional outcomes. Treat periprosthetic fractures with same urgency as hip fractures in elderly patients.
Limitation: Retrospective design, selection bias (sicker patients may have delayed surgery due to medical optimization needs).

Anterior Femoral Notching and Fracture Risk

3
Ritter MA et al • Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (2005)
Key Findings:
  • Case-control study of 116 periprosthetic fractures vs 232 controls
  • Anterior cortical notching over 3mm: 4.3 times increased fracture risk
  • Notching location corresponded to fracture location in 92% of cases
  • Average time from TKA to fracture: 2.8 years with notching vs 6.5 years without
  • Biomechanical analysis showed 30% reduction in torsional strength with 3mm notch
Clinical Implication: Meticulous surgical technique to avoid anterior femoral notching during TKA component preparation can significantly reduce periprosthetic fracture risk. Surgeons should assess for notching on postoperative lateral radiographs and counsel high-risk patients.
Limitation: Retrospective radiographic assessment of notching, inter-observer variability in measuring notch depth.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Classification and Initial Management (2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"An 82-year-old woman presents to ED after a fall at home. She has a right TKA performed 5 years ago for osteoarthritis. Radiographs show a supracondylar femur fracture 8cm above the femoral component with 10mm of lateral translation. The femoral component appears well-fixed with no lucency. How would you assess and manage this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a Lewis and Rorabeck Type II periprosthetic supracondylar femur fracture - displaced fracture with a stable, well-fixed prosthesis. I would take a systematic approach: First, complete history including mechanism (low-energy fall), function before injury, medical comorbidities, and medications affecting bone health. Second, examination focusing on neurovascular status, skin integrity, knee range of motion, and ability to straight leg raise. Third, imaging with AP and lateral radiographs of the entire femur and contralateral knee for comparison to assess prosthetic stability. I would also check inflammatory markers (ESR, CRP) to rule out occult infection. My management would be surgical fixation, either lateral locked plate or retrograde IM nail depending on femoral component design. I need to assess if the component has an open or closed intercondylar box on the lateral radiograph. If open box and good bone quality, I would favor retrograde nailing for load-sharing fixation. If closed box, lateral locked plate with submuscular technique. I would counsel about union rate 75-85%, 15-20% revision rate, prolonged recovery (6 months to union), and 1-year mortality risk of approximately 30% at her age.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Correct classification as Type II (displaced, stable prosthesis)
Systematic assessment of prosthetic stability using radiographic criteria (lucency, subsidence, alignment)
Recognition that femoral component design (open vs closed box) determines fixation method
Treatment with ORIF appropriate for Type II fractures
Realistic counseling about outcomes including mortality risk
COMMON TRAPS
✗Misclassifying as Type III without assessing prosthetic stability on radiographs
✗Choosing retrograde nail without checking for open-box femoral component
✗Recommending non-operative management for a clearly displaced Type II fracture
✗Failing to discuss mortality risk in elderly patient with periprosthetic fracture
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"How would you distinguish Type II from Type III on radiographs?"
"What if the patient is medically unfit for surgery?"
"How would your management change if there was 2mm lucency around the femoral component?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Surgical Technique Decision (3-4 min)

EXAMINER

"You are planning surgery for the patient in Scenario 1. On reviewing the lateral radiograph more carefully, you note the femoral component has a closed-box design. The patient's bone quality appears osteoporotic with thin cortices. Walk me through your surgical plan."

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
Given the closed-box femoral component design, retrograde intramedullary nailing is NOT an option as the nail cannot pass through the intercondylar box. My surgical plan would be lateral locked plate fixation using a submuscular bridge plating technique. Patient positioning: Supine on a radiolucent table with the affected leg free-draped from hip to ankle, bump under ipsilateral hip for neutral rotation. I would use a lateral approach, 8-12cm incision centered over the lateral intermuscular septum. I would elevate the vastus lateralis to create a submuscular tunnel and slide a lateral periarticular locking plate (LISS or NCB system) proximally without opening the fracture site. Given the osteoporotic bone quality, I would use locking screws exclusively and fill all available screw holes to maximize fixation - targeting 4-6 bicortical locking screws proximal to the fracture and 3-4 distal locking screws. I would use fluoroscopy to confirm fracture reduction (acceptable: under 5mm translation, under 5° angulation), ensure the plate does not impinge on the femoral component distally (leave at least 1cm gap), and verify all screws are bicortical and clear of the joint. For provisional reduction, I may use pointed reduction clamps and K-wires. Postoperatively, hinged knee brace locked in extension, touch weight-bearing for 6 weeks, progressive weight-bearing from 6-12 weeks based on radiographic healing. I would counsel about higher nonunion risk (20-30%) in osteoporotic bone and potential need for revision to stemmed TKA if ORIF fails.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Recognition that closed-box design precludes retrograde nailing
Correct choice of lateral locked plate as alternative
Emphasis on locking screws and filling all holes in osteoporotic bone for maximal fixation
Bridge plating technique without opening fracture site (biological fixation)
Realistic discussion of higher failure risk in osteoporotic bone and backup plan (revision TKA)
COMMON TRAPS
✗Attempting retrograde nail despite closed-box component (major error!)
✗Using standard non-locking plate in osteoporotic bone (inadequate fixation)
✗Opening fracture site for direct reduction (damages biology, increases nonunion risk)
✗Being overly optimistic about outcomes in osteoporotic patient without discussing revision TKA as backup
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if you discover anterior femoral notching intraoperatively?"
"How would you modify your approach if the fracture extended more proximally to mid-diaphysis?"
"What are the biomechanical advantages of a retrograde nail over a lateral plate, and when do they matter?"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 3: Type III Fracture and Complication Management (2-3 min)

EXAMINER

"A 74-year-old man with a TKA performed 8 years ago falls and sustains a supracondylar femur fracture. Radiographs show the fracture is displaced with 5° of valgus angulation. You also note progressive radiolucent lines around the femoral component and 3mm of component subsidence compared to prior radiographs. How would you manage this?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a Lewis and Rorabeck Type III periprosthetic fracture - the presence of progressive radiolucent lines and component subsidence indicates prosthetic loosening, making this Type III regardless of fracture displacement. ORIF is contraindicated because the fracture will not heal if the prosthesis remains loose. My management would be revision total knee arthroplasty with long cemented stems and fracture fixation. Pre-operatively, I would obtain a CT scan to assess bone stock and metaphyseal defects, template for stem length (target: greater than 100mm beyond fracture apex or 2 cortical diameters), and ensure I have appropriate equipment including long stems (150-200mm), augments for metaphyseal defects, cerclage cables for provisional fracture fixation, and allograft struts if needed for cortical deficiency. Surgical approach would be medial parapatellar, potentially with tibial tubercle osteotomy or quadriceps snip if exposure is difficult. After removing the loose femoral component, I would reduce the fracture with pointed reduction clamps and apply 2-3 cerclage cables straddling the fracture for compression and provisional stability. I would then ream the femoral canal, insert a cement restrictor beyond the stem tip, and cement a long-stemmed revision femoral component with retrograde cementation technique. The stem provides load-sharing across the fracture while the cables maintain reduction. Postoperatively, touch weight-bearing for 6 weeks progressing to full weight-bearing by 12 weeks. I would counsel about union rate of 65-80%, higher complication rate (30-40%), and potential need for further revision surgery (20-25% at 5 years).
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Correct identification of prosthetic loosening features (radiolucent lines, subsidence) making this Type III
Recognition that ORIF is contraindicated in Type III - must address prosthetic loosening
Systematic approach to revision arthroplasty: pre-operative planning, stem length calculation, fracture stabilization with cables
Understanding that cemented stems are preferred in fracture setting for immediate stability
Realistic discussion of outcomes and high complication rate with Type III fractures
COMMON TRAPS
✗Misclassifying as Type II and planning ORIF (will fail due to prosthetic loosening)
✗Planning uncemented press-fit stems in fracture setting (risk of fracture propagation)
✗Inadequate stem length (must bypass fracture by greater than 100mm or 2 cortical diameters)
✗Failing to plan for provisional fracture fixation with cables before stem insertion
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What if the patient also has severe tibial bone loss requiring stems?"
"How would you manage a deep infection discovered intraoperatively during revision?"
"What is your threshold for using metaphyseal sleeves vs augments in this case?"

MCQ Practice Points

Classification Question

Q: A 78-year-old woman sustains a periprosthetic supracondylar fracture 6 years after TKA. Radiographs show 8mm of fracture displacement with the femoral component appearing well-fixed with no lucency. What Lewis & Rorabeck type is this?

A: Type II - Displaced fracture (over 5mm) with stable, well-fixed prosthesis. Type I would be non-displaced (under 5mm, under 5° angulation). Type III would have evidence of prosthetic loosening (lucency, subsidence, or malalignment). The key is assessing prosthetic stability independently from fracture displacement.

Surgical Technique Question

Q: What is the critical pre-operative assessment required before planning retrograde intramedullary nailing for a Type II periprosthetic supracondylar fracture?

A: Assessment of femoral component intercondylar box design on lateral radiograph. An open-box design with adequate height (over 10mm) and width (over 12mm) is REQUIRED to allow passage of a retrograde nail (typically 9-10mm diameter). Closed-box designs do NOT allow nail passage and require lateral locked plate fixation instead. Attempting to nail through a closed box will cause catastrophic implant damage.

Risk Factor Question

Q: Anterior femoral cortical notching during TKA component preparation increases periprosthetic fracture risk by how much, and what is the critical threshold depth?

A: 4-fold increased fracture risk when anterior cortical notching exceeds 3mm depth on lateral radiographs. The notch creates a stress concentration point in the supracondylar region where bending moments are highest during gait. Surgeons should assess all postoperative TKA radiographs for notching and counsel high-risk patients about fall prevention.

Treatment Decision Question

Q: An 85-year-old patient with severe medical comorbidities sustains a Type II periprosthetic supracondylar fracture. CT shows severe osteoporosis with thin cortices. What factors would make you consider revision TKA with stems instead of ORIF?

A: Severe osteoporosis (T-score below -2.5), very thin cortices (under 4mm), and poor bone quality are relative indications for revision TKA over ORIF in Type II fractures. ORIF in severe osteoporosis has nonunion rates of 30-40% and high risk of screw pullout. Revision with long cemented stems provides immediate stability and load-sharing fixation. Other factors: very distal fracture location (within 5cm of component), closed-box implant precluding nail, or patient factors suggesting ORIF will fail.

Complication Question

Q: What is the 1-year mortality rate for elderly patients with periprosthetic supracondylar fractures after TKA, and how does it compare to hip fractures?

A: Approximately 30% mortality at 1 year, which is comparable to neck of femur fractures in the elderly. This high mortality reflects the patient population (elderly, multiple comorbidities, osteoporosis) and the physiological stress of fracture and surgery. These fractures should be treated with the same urgency as hip fractures, with early surgery (within 48 hours if possible), multidisciplinary orthogeriatric care, and medical optimization to reduce mortality.

Outcome Question

Q: What is the expected union rate for Type II periprosthetic fractures treated with ORIF in patients with good bone quality vs severe osteoporosis?

A: Good bone quality: 75-85% union rate. Severe osteoporosis: 60-70% union rate. The 15-25% difference reflects the impact of bone quality on fracture healing and fixation stability. In osteoporotic bone, locking screws can pull out, plates can fail, and biological healing is impaired. This is why severe osteoporosis is a relative indication for revision TKA with cemented stems rather than ORIF, especially in Type II fractures.

Australian Context and Medicolegal Considerations

AOANJRR Data

  • Revision burden: Periprosthetic fractures account for 12% of all TKA revisions in Australia
  • Incidence trend: Increasing from 2.1% to 2.8% over 10 years (2013-2023) with aging population
  • Re-revision rate: 20% at 5 years after revision for periprosthetic fracture
  • Cemented vs uncemented stems: Cemented stems have lower revision rate (15% vs 25%) in fracture setting
  • Mortality: 28% at 1 year post-revision for fracture, comparable to hip fracture mortality

Australian Guidelines

  • ACSQHC: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care recommends multidisciplinary orthogeriatric care for periprosthetic fractures
  • DVT prophylaxis: Extended prophylaxis for minimum 6 weeks post-surgery (NHMRC guidelines)
  • Bone health: Pre-operative DEXA scanning and osteoporosis treatment recommended for high-risk patients (Osteoporosis Australia)
  • Funding: Periprosthetic fracture surgery covered under public system; private patients may have out-of-pocket costs

Medicolegal Considerations

Key documentation requirements:

  • Informed consent: Document discussion of treatment options (ORIF vs revision TKA), expected outcomes, complications (nonunion 20-30%, infection 3-5%, mortality 30% at 1 year in elderly), and alternative approaches
  • Prosthetic stability assessment: Document radiographic criteria used to classify fracture (Type I vs II vs III), including assessment for lucency, subsidence, and alignment on AP and lateral views
  • Implant compatibility: Document verification of femoral component design (open vs closed box) before planning retrograde nail - attempting to nail closed-box component is indefensible
  • Medical optimization: Document pre-operative assessment of bone health (DEXA if available), medical comorbidities, and optimization of cardiopulmonary status
  • Early surgery: Document rationale for timing of surgery - delay beyond 48 hours should have clear medical justification
  • Postoperative complications: Document management of complications (nonunion, infection, hardware failure) and shared decision-making about revision surgery

Common litigation issues:

  • Anterior femoral notching during index TKA leading to subsequent fracture (claims of substandard surgical technique)
  • Wrong fixation method (attempting retrograde nail through closed-box component, or ORIF in Type III fracture)
  • Delayed surgery (beyond 7 days) without medical justification, associated with worse outcomes
  • Failure to diagnose prosthetic loosening pre-operatively (Type III misclassified as Type II, leading to ORIF failure)

TKA PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES

High-Yield Exam Summary

Key Classification

  • •Lewis & Rorabeck Type I = Non-displaced (under 5mm, under 5°), stable prosthesis = ORIF or conservative
  • •Type II = Displaced (over 5mm OR over 5°), stable prosthesis = ORIF (plate or nail based on implant design)
  • •Type III = Any displacement + prosthesis loose (lucency, subsidence, malalignment) = Revision TKA with stems
  • •Felix tibial: Type I (plateau) = revision, Type II (adjacent to stem) = plate ± stem extension, Type III/IV = standard fixation
  • •Patellar: Intact extensor = conservative, disrupted extensor = surgical repair or patellectomy

Surgical Decision Algorithm

  • •Type II + open-box component + good bone = Retrograde IM nail (85-90% union)
  • •Type II + closed-box component OR osteoporotic bone = Lateral locked plate (75-85% union)
  • •Type III (loose prosthesis) = Revision TKA with long stems (over 100mm beyond fracture) + cerclage cables
  • •Severe osteoporosis in Type II = Consider revision TKA upfront (ORIF has 30-40% nonunion rate)
  • •Open-box verification is MANDATORY before planning retrograde nail - catastrophic if attempted with closed box

Surgical Pearls

  • •Lateral locked plate: Submuscular bridge plating, fill all holes in osteoporotic bone, leave 1cm gap from femoral component
  • •Retrograde nail: Entry point center of intercondylar notch, bury nail 5mm below articular surface, confirm clearance from polyethylene
  • •Revision TKA: Cemented stems preferred (immediate stability), cerclage cables for provisional fracture fixation, stem length = fracture + 100mm or 2 cortical diameters
  • •Anterior femoral notching over 3mm = 4-fold fracture risk, assess on all lateral radiographs
  • •Weight-bearing: Touch for 6 weeks, progress to full by 12 weeks if radiographic healing evident

Risk Factors

  • •FORNOW = Female, Osteoporosis, Rheumatoid, Neurological, Old age, Warfarin/steroids
  • •Anterior femoral notching over 3mm increases fracture risk 4-fold
  • •Osteoporosis (T-score below -2.5) increases nonunion risk with ORIF to 30-40%
  • •Revision TKA has 5-10% periprosthetic fracture rate (vs 2.5% for primary TKA)

Complications

  • •Nonunion 20-30% with ORIF in osteoporotic bone, 10-15% in good bone, managed with revision ORIF or conversion to stemmed TKA
  • •Hardware failure 10-15% (plate) or 5% (nail), due to screw pullout in poor bone or premature weight-bearing
  • •Infection (PJI) 3-5%, requires debridement or two-stage revision based on chronicity
  • •Mortality 30% at 1 year in elderly - comparable to hip fracture, treat with same urgency
  • •Stiffness 15-20%, managed with early ROM, manipulation under anesthesia at 6-12 weeks if severe
Quick Stats
Reading Time174 min
Related Topics

Adult Hip Dysplasia

Ankle Arthritis

Aseptic Loosening in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Avascular Necrosis of the Hip