Abstract
Background
Newer generation cable-plate designs are commonly used for periprosthetic proximal femur fractures; however, comparisons relative to cable-grips remain limited. The aim of this study was to compare radiographic healing rates of cable-plate versus cable-grip fixation for periprosthetic proximal femur fractures.
Patients and methods
Consecutive patients with an acute or chronic Vancouver A, B1, or B2 periprosthetic proximal femur fracture undergoing trochanteric fixation with a cable-plate (n = 46 cases) or cable-grip (n = 24 cases) system were identified retrospectively from a single-centre hospital database (mean follow-up 28 months [range 6-89 months]). Demographics, radiographic fracture healing, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Radiographic union rates were not different between the cable-grip versus cable-plate group (67% vs. 76% respectively; p = 0.4). Healing rates of greater trochanteric fractures alone were not different between the cable-plate versus cable-grip groups (75% vs. 71% respectively; p = 0.38). The cable-plates were used for a more diverse range of fracture patterns relative to the cable-grips.
Results
An increased number of cables was associated with radiographic healing (odds ratio 14 [95% confidence interval 2-64]; p = 0.01), and body mass index had a negative correlation with radiographic healing (odds ratio −0.4 [95% confidence interval 0.5-0.9].
Conclusions
Similar rates of periprosthetic fracture healing were seen using a cable-grip versus cable-plate system; however, the cable-plate system could be used for a more diverse range of fracture patterns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.