Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
- Field testing the Unified Classification System for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur around a total hip replacement : an international collaboration.Bone Joint J. 2014; 96-B: 1472-1477
- Revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fracture using an uncemented modular tapered conical stem.Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B: 1031-1037
- Patient and implant survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty: an analysis from the national joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B: 1199-1208
- Functional outcome of femoral peri prosthetic fracture and revision hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair study from the New Zealand Registry.Acta Orthop. 2008; 79: 483-488
- Periprosthetic femur fracture risk: influenced by stem choice, not surgical approach.J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: S363-S366
- Does femoral stem choice influence fracture type or incidence for direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty?.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021; 142: 3515-3521
- Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience.Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B: 461-467
- Perioperative fractures in cementless total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior minimally invasive approach: reduced risk with short stems.J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 548-554
- Risk factors for periprosthetic femur fracture and influence of femoral fixation using the mini-anterolateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35: 774-778
- Prevalence of postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures between two different femoral component designs used in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: 3074-3079
- Short stems for total hip arthroplasty: initial experience with the Fitmore stem.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94: 47-51
- Stubby stems: good things come in small packages.Orthopedics. 2011; 34: e464-e466
- Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 1742-1752
- A short tapered stem reduces intraoperative complications in primary total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470: 450-461
- Early complications of primary total hip arthroplasty in the supine position with a modified Watson-Jones anterolateral approach.J Orthop. 2014; 11: 166-169
- Total hip arthroplasty via an anterolateral supine approach for obese patients increases the risk of greater trochanteric fracture.J Orthop. 2018; 15: 379-383
- Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty.Bone Joint J. 2019; 101-B: 646-651
- Periprosthetic femoral fractures and trying to avoid them: what is the contribution of femoral component design to the increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture?.Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 50-59
- Outpatient minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty via a modified Watson-Jones approach: technique and results.Instr Course Lect. 2013; 62: 229-236
- Translateral surgical approach to the hip. The abductor muscle “split”.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 295: 135-141
- Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009; 17: 677-688
- Incidence, classification, and risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with a single stem: a retrospective study.J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: 1400-1411
- Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation and management.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 2000-2012
- The direct lateral approach to the hip.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1982; 64: 17-19
- Risk of periprosthetic fractures with direct anterior primary total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31: 2295-2298
- Intraoperative complications and early return to the operating room in total hip arthroplasty performed through the direct anterior and posterior approaches. An institutional experience of surgeons after their learning curve.J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: 2829-2835
- Short stems versus conventional stems in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a long-term registry study.J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 1794-1799
- Short stems for total hip replacement among middle-aged patients.Int Orthop. 2020; 44: 847-855
- Risk factors for post-operative periprosthetic fractures following primary total hip arthroplasty with a proximally coated double-tapered cementless femoral component.Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 451-457
- A comparison between the direct anterior and posterior approaches for total hip arthroplasty: the role of an ‘Enhanced Recovery’ pathway.Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B: 754-760
- Perioperative periprosthetic fractures associated with primary total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32: 992-995
- Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review.Int Orthop. 2015; 39: 1673-1682
- Risk factors for perioperative femoral fractures: cementless femoral implants and the direct anterior approach using a fracture table.J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31: 2013-2018
- Operative treatment of early peri-prosthetic femur fractures following primary total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28: 286-291
- Cementless short-stem total hip arthroplasty in the elderly patient - is it a safe option?: a prospective multicentre observational study.BMC Geriatr. 2019; 19: 112
Publication stageIn Press Journal Pre-Proof
One or more of the authors of this paper have disclosed potential or pertinent conflicts of interest, which may include receipt of payment, either direct or indirect, institutional support, or association with an entity in the biomedical field which may be perceived to have potential conflict of interest with this work. For full disclosure statements refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.027.
Funding: The study was conducted without any funding or benefits from a commercial party. Two co-authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party outside the conduction of this study.
Competing interests: We report personal fees paid to one co-author (T.G.) during the conduct of the study from Zimmer Biomet, Europe and from Depuy Synthes Orthopädie Gmbh, Peter Brehm GmbH, ImplanTec GmbH outside the submitted work. We report research grants paid to our institution during the conduct of the study from Zimmer Biomet, Europe, Mathys AG Switzerland, Anika Therapeutics outside the submitted work.
Author contributions: M. Luger: Wrote the manuscript, performed the statistical analysis, designed the study, acquisition of data, interpretation of the data. S. Feldler: Co-wrote the manuscript. L. Pisecky: Jointly conceived the study, edited the manuscript, interpretation of the data. A. Klasan: Jointly conceived the study, edited the manuscript, interpretation of the data. T. Gotterbarm: Revised the manuscript. C. Schopper: Jointly conceived the study, edited the manuscript, interpretation of the data.
Ethical Approval: This study received ethical approval from the local institutional review board (EK-No.: 1194/2021) of the “Ethikkommission OÖ” of the Johannes Kepler University Linz (JKU Linz).