Literature DB >> 22209383

Monoblock hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures--a part of orthopaedic history? Analysis of national registration of hemiarthroplasties 2005-2009.

Cecilia Rogmark1, Olof Leonardsson, Göran Garellick, Johan Kärrholm.   

Abstract

This study from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) compares cemented (Thompson(®), Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS)(®)) and uncemented (Austin-Moore(®)) monoblock hemiarthroplasties (n=1116 and 616, respectively) with modular ones (n=18,659). Austin-Moore(®) prostheses lead to more re-operations (6.7%) compared to modular implants (3.5%) and Thompson(®)/ETS(®) (2.4%). A Cox regression analysis, adjusting for other risk factors, shows twice the risk of re-operation for Austin-Moore(®) implants (CI 1.5-2.8), in particular, due to periprosthetic fracture (5.4; CI 3.2-9.1) and dislocation (1.9; CI 1.3-3.0). The Thompson(®)/ETS(®) implants do not influence the overall risk of re-operation (0.7; CI 0.5-1.2) compared to modular implants and decrease the risk of re-operation due to infection (0.2;CI 0.04-0.7). An increased risk of re-operation is also seen in men, age groups 75-85 years and <75 years and after secondary fracture surgery. Both Swedish and Australian orthopaedic surgeons have decreased their use of Austin-Moore(®) implants after reports from their national arthroplasty registers identifying inferior outcome for this implant. Due to the increased risk of re-operations, it should not be used in modern orthopaedic care. Cemented Thompson(®) or ETS(®) implants could still be suitable for the oldest, low-activity patients. To finally decide if there is a place for them, patient-reported outcome must be analysed as well.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22209383     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.11.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Arthroplasty in patients with osteoporosis].

Authors:  Carl Haasper; Mustafa Citak; Max Ettinger; Thorsten Gehrke
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 2.  The Effect of Type of Femoral Component Fixation on Mortality and Morbidity after Hip Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mohamed Imam; Mohamed Shehata; Mahmoud Morsi; Muhammad Shawqi; Ahmed Elsehili; Paul Trikha; Lukas Ernstbrunner; Ashwin Unnithan; Arshad Khaleel; Puneet Monga; Ali Narvani; Asser Sallam
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-08-05

3.  Efficacies of surgical treatments based on Harris hip score in elderly patients with femoral neck fracture.

Authors:  Chengwei Liang; Fengjian Yang; Weilong Lin; Yongqian Fan
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-05-15

4.  Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures?

Authors:  Tero Yli-Kyyny; Reijo Sund; Mikko Heinänen; Petri Venesmaa; Heikki Kröger
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty.

Authors:  Elias Mazzawi; Nabil Ghrayeb; Farouk Khury; Doron Norman; Yaniv Keren
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Lower reoperation rate for cemented hemiarthroplasty than for uncemented hemiarthroplasty and internal fixation following femoral neck fracture: 12- to 19-year follow-up of patients aged 75 years or more.

Authors:  Bjarke Viberg; Søren Overgaard; Jens Lauritsen; Ole Ovesen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Current trends of stem use in hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture in South Korea.

Authors:  Young-Kyun Lee; Ki-Choul Kim; Byung-Ho Yoon; Yong-Chan Ha; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2014-08-05

8.  Thompson hemiarthroplasty versus modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip: A systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  A L Sims; A J Farrier; M R Reed; T A Sheldon
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.853

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.