[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-455109-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-455109-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","locking-plate-fixation-with-fibular-allograft-augmentation-for-failed-peritrochanteric-fractures-a-technical-note","Locking Plate Fixation with Fibular Allograft Augmentation for Failed Peritrochanteric Fractures - A Technical Note","","Failure of peritrochanteric fractures can occur in patients with poor bone stock, leading to implant failure or nonunion where deformity correction, alignment restoration, and effective bone grafting are essential. A technical approach using endosteally placed fibular allograft with a locking plate was evaluated in 10 patients treated between 2016 and 2022. All achieved bone union with an average time of 9.6 months (6–14). No allograft-related infection or other complications were observed.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/locking-plate-fixation-with-fibular-allograft-augmentation-for-failed-peritrochanteric-fractures-a-technical-note/455109/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/locking-plate-fixation-with-fibular-allograft-augmentation-for-failed-peritrochanteric-fractures-a-technical-note/455109.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Anna Hans","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why do peritrochanteric fractures fail in patients with poor bone stock?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Failures can result from poor bone stock and unfavorable fracture patterns, which may cause implant failure and/or nonunion. Nonunion requires addressing deformity, restoring alignment, and managing bone defects with grafting.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What treatment was evaluated in this technical note?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"A fixation strategy combining endosteally placed fibular allograft augmentation with a locking plate was used for nonunion of peritrochanteric fractures in patients with poor bone stock or cortical bone defects.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What outcomes were reported regarding bone union and complications?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Bone union was achieved in all 10 cases, with an average union time of 9.6 months (range 6–14). No allograft-related complications such as infection were reported.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},455109,1790816979,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},5909892332657,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","®  \n Observational Study   \nLocking plate fixation with fibular allograft augmentation for failed peritrochanteric fractures A technical note  \nMin Uk Do, MDa , Kyeong Baek Kim, MDa , Hyun Tae Koo, MDa , Won Chul Shin, MD, PhDa ,*  \n\n| Abstract\u003Cbr>The failure cases of peritrochanteric fractures are occasionally encountered due to poor bone stock. For proximal humeral fractures, a strategy using a segment of the fibular allograft (FA) placed endosteally was introduced. Several studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes with FA. Inspired by this, a fixation strategy using FA with a locking plate was performed in patients with unfavorable bone stock conditions. Ten patients with poor bone stock and nonunion of peritrochanteric fractures were treated with FA and a locking plate at a tertiary hospital between 2016 and 2022. We analyzed the bone union status, the time taken for union, and postoperative complications. Bone union was achieved in all cases following average time of 9.6 months (range 6–14 months) . There was no complication related to allograft such as infection. The use of FA in conjunction with a locking plate for fixation in nonunion of peritrochanteric fractures with poor bone stock or cortical bone defects demonstrated successful outcomes in our study. Ongoing observations and reporting are essential for comprehensive validation and addressing potential complications. |\n| --- |\n| Abbreviations: FA = fibular allograft. |\n| Keywords: fibular allograft, intertrochanteric fracture, nonunion, subtrochanteric fracture |\n\n1. Introduction  \nThe incidence of hip fractures has markedly increased in recent years with an aging of population. [1] A considerable proportion of hip fractures are intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric. Internal fixation is the treatment of choice for the types of fractures mentioned above. [2–6] Although implants have been developed, failure cases are occasionally encountered owing to poor bone stock, unfavorable fracture patterns, inappropriate choice of implants, or improper implant position. [7–10]  \nTwo situations must be overcome in cases of failed peritrochanteric fracture. One is implant failure, and the other is nonunion. Problems associated with implant failure necessitate decision-making regarding the removal of the internal fixation device and the method for refixation. In the nonunion site, the associated challenges include overcoming deformities at the fracture site and restoring alignment. Additionally, addressing bone grafting at the nonunion site and overcoming bone defects become crucial issues.  \nA high incidence of screw perforation, varus collapse, and fixation failure has been reported in medial column comminuted  \nThis work was supported by a 2-year Research Grant of Pusan National University.  \nThe authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.  \nThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.  \nThis study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for cohort studies, and Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital institutional review board (no. 55-2024-046) approval was obtained. a Investigation Performed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.  \nproximal humeral fractures. [11,12] A strategy for providing medial support using an endosteally placed segment of the fibular allograft (FA) was introduced. Several studies demonstrated favorable outcomes with FA. [13–15] Inspired by this, a fixation strategy using FA with a locking plate was performed in patients with unfavorable conditions for bone stock. We introduce this method because it yields positive outcomes.  \n2. M","cbCail2k0xxfAXwS","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCail2k0xxfAXwS","pdf",625599,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n# Methods","[{\"question\":\"Why do peritrochanteric fractures fail in patients with poor bone stock?\",\"answer\":\"Failures can result from poor bone stock and unfavorable fracture patterns, which may cause implant failure and/or nonunion. Nonunion requires addressing deformity, restoring alignment, and managing bone defects with grafting.\"},{\"question\":\"What treatment was evaluated in this technical note?\",\"answer\":\"A fixation strategy combining endosteally placed fibular allograft augmentation with a locking plate was used for nonunion of peritrochanteric fractures in patients with poor bone stock or cortical bone defects.\"},{\"question\":\"What outcomes were reported regarding bone union and complications?\",\"answer\":\"Bone union was achieved in all 10 cases, with an average union time of 9.6 months (range 6–14). No allograft-related complications such as infection were reported.\"}]","Locking Plate Fixation with Fibular Allograft Augmentation for Failed Peritrochanteric Fractures - A Technical Note | PDF",1790742136,13]