Literature DB >> 29922893

The value of a standardized and reproducible surgical technique in treatment of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures: our experience.

Stefano Biggi1,2, Andrea Camera3,4, Riccardo Tedino3,4, Andrea Capuzzo3,4, Stefano Tornago4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review results and complications of our standardized surgical technique addressed exclusively to Vancouver B2 fractures.
METHODS: From January 2006 to July 2016, we treated 235 consecutive patients, 47 males and 188 females, mean age at surgery of 71 ± 10 years, with periprosthetic B2 fractures. Exclusion criteria were other kind of periprosthetic fractures and other femoral fractures. The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically following our standard protocol at the last available follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 6.4 years. Radiographic evaluation was performed according to Beals and Tower's criteria and clinical evaluation was performed using the Harris Hip Score and clinical exam.
RESULTS: From the starter cohort of 235, 207 patients (88.1%) were fully evaluated, while 28 were lost to follow-up. According to Beal and Tower's criteria, we found excellent results in 72 patients (34.8%), good results in 133 patients (64.3%), and poor results in 2 patients (0.9%). Mean HHS was 75 ± 9 points, with a statistically significant correlation between good functional results and better radiographic assessment (p = 0.001). The use of support plate (p = 0.008) and the acetabular revision (p = 0.002) showed a statistically significant distribution with worse radiographic results. Late complications detected were ten dislocations.
CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that using a standardized and reproducible surgical technique, as our technique proposed, can surely reduce surgical time, the complication rate, and the mortality rate. During acetabular evaluation, the choice of performing a cup revision must be weighed on overall patient's assessment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Hip; Periprosthetic fractures; Revision

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29922893     DOI: 10.1007/s00068-018-0976-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg        ISSN: 1863-9933            Impact factor:   3.693


  42 in total

1.  Component exchange in treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Authors:  Alexander Katzer; Akif Ince; Joachim Wodtke; Jochen F Loehr
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Subtrochanteric hip fractures treated with cerclage cables and long cephalomedullary nails: a review of 17 consecutive cases over 2 years.

Authors:  Muiris T Kennedy; Aniruddha Mitra; Timothy G Hierlihy; James A Harty; Declan Reidy; Mark Dolan
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-04-17       Impact factor: 2.586

3.  Cerclage handling for improved fracture treatment. A biomechanical study on the twisting procedure.

Authors:  D Wähnert; M Lenz; U Schlegel; S Perren; M Windolf
Journal:  Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 0.531

4.  Tangential Bicortical Locked Fixation Improves Stability in Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  Gregory S Lewis; Cyrus T Caroom; Hwabok Wee; Darin Jurgensmeier; Shane D Rothermel; Michelle A Bramer; John Spence Reid
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  The excess mortality due to periprosthetic femur fracture. A study from the Swedish national hip arthroplasty register.

Authors:  H Lindahl; A Oden; G Garellick; H Malchau
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  Hospital resource utilization for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Patricia Katz; Miriam Cisternas; Linda Ono; Michael D Ries; Jonathan Showstack
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Comorbid cognitive impairment and depression is a significant predictor of poor outcomes in hip fracture rehabilitation.

Authors:  Liang Feng; Samuel C Scherer; Boon Yeow Tan; Gribson Chan; Ngan Phoon Fong; Tze Pin Ng
Journal:  Int Psychogeriatr       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 3.878

8.  Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. An analysis of 93 fractures.

Authors:  R K Beals; S S Tower
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture.

Authors:  John Franklin; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-04-30       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 10.  Periprosthetic fractures around the femoral stem: overcoming challenges and avoiding pitfalls.

Authors:  Andrew N Fleischman; Antonia F Chen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-09
View more
  1 in total

1.  The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review.

Authors:  Clemens Schopper; Matthias Luger; Günter Hipmair; Bernhard Schauer; Tobias Gotterbarm; Antonio Klasan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.362

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.