PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Clinical results of long-term follow-up after traumatic periprosthetic femur fractures and different therapies (ORIF vs. revision arthroplasty) MATERIAL AND METHODS The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Harris-Hip-Score (HHS), Oxford-Hip-Score (OHS), Oxford-Knee-Score (OKS), Knee-Society-Score (KSS), SF-36 Questionnaire and Funktionsfragebogen Hannover (FFH) were used to evaluate outcome and functionality. Radiological examinations were performed and the Vancouver (THA) and Lewis and Rorabeck (TKA) classifications used. RESULTS 70 patients suffered a periprosthetic hip fracture (29× revision prosthesis, 41x ORIF), 23 patients underwent an ORIF due to periprosthetic fracture of a TKA (total mean age 75.2 years). 47 patients (follow-up rate 51%) were examined 40 months after surgery (mean age 72 years) (THA: 16× revision, 23× ORIF, TKA: 8× ORIF). The VAS revealed significant less pain in the group that had undergone revision hip arthroplasty than in the ORIF group: 3.9±1 vs. 5.1±1.7 (p<0.05), respectively. 5/16 patients with revision arthroplasty had excellent or good results in the HSS compared to 3/23 patients after ORIF. The OHS yielded excellent or good results in 12/16 patients after revision arthroplasty vs. 10/23 after ORIF. The VAS after ORIF in patients who suffered periprosthetic knee fractures was 4.9±2.1. 3/8 patients achieved excellent or good results according to the OKS. CONCLUSION Every functional score (HSS, OHS, FFH, SF-36) of those patients who had undergone revision arthroplasty was slightly higher and their VAS significantly lower than the scores of the patients after ORIF. Key words: periprosthetic fractures, trauma, open reduction and internal fixation, revision arthroplasty.