Literature DB >> 33575925

Comparable outcomes of in-cement revision and uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fracture at 5 years.

Antonio Klasan1,2,3, James Millar4, Jonathan Quayle4, Bill Farrington4, Peter Nicholas Misur4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) are detrimental for patients. Vancouver B2 fractures about a cemented stem can be revised to a longer uncemented stem or using an in-cement revision, if the cement mantle is adequate. There are reports documenting the success of both techniques. The aim of this single centre study was to perform a direct comparison of these two procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of consecutive Vancouver B2 PFFs around a cemented stem during 16 years was performed. All study cases were treated either using an in-cement revision or with an uncemented stem revision. Preoperatively, the groups were compared based upon age, gender, ASA, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity score. The outcome measures were surgical time, complications, in-hospital stay, revisions, 1-year readmission rate, and survivorship.
RESULTS: After a median of 3.5 years, there were 70 patients in the uncemented and 31 in the in-cement group. There was no difference in any of the preoperative variables. Surgical time was shorter for in-cement revisions by a mean of 45 min (p < 0.001). There was no difference in in-hospital stay, surgical complications or readmissions. Implant survival at 5 years was 93.5% for the in-cement and 94.4% for the uncemented revision (p = 0.946). Patient survivorship at 5 years was 62.5% for the in-cement and 69.8% for the uncemented group (p = 0.094).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in-cement revision is a valid treatment option for Vancouver B2 fractures, comparable to uncemented stem revision, if certain criteria are met. There was no difference in revision rate, patient survivorship, complications, readmissions or in-hospital stay.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Follow-up; In-cement; Mortality; Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Revision; Uncemented; complications

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33575925     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-03776-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  26 in total

1.  Updated projections of total joint arthroplasty demands in America. Commentary on an article by Steven M. Kurtz, PhD, et al.: "Impact of the Economic Downturn on Total Joint Replacement Demand in the United States. Updated Projections to 2021".

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Kimona Issa
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  The Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review.

Authors:  Peter N Misur; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri
Journal:  JBJS Rev       Date:  2014-08-12

3.  Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem: analysis of 1179 first-time revisions in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  P H J Cnudde; J Kärrholm; O Rolfson; A J Timperley; M Mohaddes
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Predictors of Functional Recovery Following Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures.

Authors:  John A Ruder; Gavin P Hart; Jeffrey S Kneisl; Bryan D Springer; Madhav A Karunakar
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Vancouver B2 Peri-Prosthetic Fractures in Cemented Femoral Implants can be Treated With Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Alone Without Revision.

Authors:  Peter J Smitham; Tania A Carbone; Scott M Bolam; Young S Kim; Stuart A Callary; Kerry Costi; Donald W Howie; Jacob T Munro; Lucian B Solomon
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Hans Lindahl; Henrik Malchau; Peter Herberts; Göran Garellick
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Functional outcome of femoral peri prosthetic fracture and revision hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair study from the New Zealand Registry.

Authors:  Simon W Young; Cameron G Walker; Rocco P Pitto
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Union rate, complication rate, and opioid usage after Vancouver B periprosthetic femur fractures: a comparison of fracture types.

Authors:  Ajith Malige; Shawn Yeazell; Matthew Beck; Franzes Anne Liongson; Henry Boateng; Chinenye Nwachuku
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Open reduction and internal fixation might be a valuable alternative to stem revision in Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, irrespective of the stem's design.

Authors:  Andreas Flury; Julian Hasler; Geert Pagenstert; Dimitris Dimitriou; Naeder Helmy; Michael Finsterwald
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review.

Authors:  Karl Stoffel; Michael Blauth; Alexander Joeris; Andrea Blumenthal; Elke Rometsch
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 3.067

View more
  1 in total

1.  Combined Surgical and Medical Treatment for Vancouver B1 and C Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: A Proposal of a Therapeutic Algorithm While Retaining the Original Stable Stem.

Authors:  Nicola Mondanelli; Elisa Troiano; Andrea Facchini; Martina Cesari; Giovanni Battista Colasanti; Vanna Bottai; Francesco Muratori; Carla Caffarelli; Stefano Gonnelli; Stefano Giannotti
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2021-12-21
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.