The Effect of Periprosthetic Fractures Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty on Long-Term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) can be devastating, yet their long-term impact has not been well described. The aim of this study is to compare the long-term outcomes of patients who sustained a PPF about a TJA with those of patients who underwent an uncomplicated TJA. Methods Patients who sustained a PPF after primary TJA between 2005 and 2014 were identified. Seventeen patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up (PPF cohort) were compared to a matched cohort of 67 patients who underwent uncomplicated TJA. Demographic data, comorbidities, surgical details, and complications were analyzed. Quality of life and functional outcomes were assessed with 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Western Ontario and McMasdter Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee Society Function Score. Results The overall complication rate was 41.2% in the PPF group, including 3 additional fractures (17.6%), 2 wound infections (11.8%), one prosthetic joint infection (5.8%), and one painful patellar hardware necessitating removal (5.8%). At 2 years, both physical and mental components of the SF-12 were significantly lower for the PPF cohort vs control (SF-12-P, 28.7 ± 4.4 vs 40.8 ± 10.3, P < .001, SF-12-M, 36.7 ± 5.07 vs 55.0 ± 8.19, P < .0001). WOMAC pain and function scores were also significantly worse in the PPF cohort vs control at 2 years (WOMAC-pain, 38.8 ± 29.9 vs 87.4 ± 22.1; P < .0001, WOMAC-function, 40.7 ± 8.7 vs 76.1 ± 20.3; P < .0001). At 2 years, score improvements from prearthroplasty baseline were significantly greater in the control cohort vs PPF for SF-12-physical, WOMAC-pain, and WOMAC-function. Conclusions Patients who sustained PPFs following TJA have poor long-term outcomes despite appropriate treatment. These results can help counsel patients and encourage heightened efforts to minimize the risk of PPF. Level of Evidence Level III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".