Hemiarthroplasty vs. tripolar total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in old-age patients

Mohammed Rabie Saleh, Anas Mansour Nasser
{"title":"Hemiarthroplasty vs. tripolar total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in old-age patients","authors":"Mohammed Rabie Saleh, Anas Mansour Nasser","doi":"10.4103/eoj.eoj_115_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Displaced femoral neck fractures (DFNFs) are increasingly common in elderly patients. Hip arthroplasty, the recommended treatment of DFNF, consists of the total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA). THA is superior to HA in younger patients. However, there are concerns whether the more substantial surgical trauma and higher dislocation rate would trade off the advantages of THA due to frailty and lower physical demands in the elderly over 75 years. Objective This study was designed to compare the clinical score, dislocation rate, and functional outcome between the dual mobility total hip replacement and the bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) in the treatment of FNFs and which of them is more successful. Patients and methods A comparative randomized prospective study was conducted on 50 patients with DFNFs. All cases were operated upon in Helwan University Hospitals, divided them into two equal groups: the first group was treated by total hip replacement with a dual mobility cup (DMC) and the second group was treated by BHA. Full analysis of history detailed examination and primarily samples are taken during the period study from February 2020 to April 2021. Results There is a statistically significant improvement in modified Harris hip score (MHHS) in the last follow-up at 9 months later in favor to DMC group compared with BHA group (P<0.001). The postoperative MHHS in the last follow-up of DMC ranged from 68 to 92 with the mean of 85.96±5.47, whereas in BHA group, ranged from 60 to 89 with the mean of 78.04±8.40. Conclusion THA may be a preferred management option for active elderly patients over 75 years, which can provide superior hip function and life quality with acceptable risks. Strict management should be followed to prevent dislocation after a THA, especially within the first 6 months.","PeriodicalId":171084,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/eoj.eoj_115_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Displaced femoral neck fractures (DFNFs) are increasingly common in elderly patients. Hip arthroplasty, the recommended treatment of DFNF, consists of the total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA). THA is superior to HA in younger patients. However, there are concerns whether the more substantial surgical trauma and higher dislocation rate would trade off the advantages of THA due to frailty and lower physical demands in the elderly over 75 years. Objective This study was designed to compare the clinical score, dislocation rate, and functional outcome between the dual mobility total hip replacement and the bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) in the treatment of FNFs and which of them is more successful. Patients and methods A comparative randomized prospective study was conducted on 50 patients with DFNFs. All cases were operated upon in Helwan University Hospitals, divided them into two equal groups: the first group was treated by total hip replacement with a dual mobility cup (DMC) and the second group was treated by BHA. Full analysis of history detailed examination and primarily samples are taken during the period study from February 2020 to April 2021. Results There is a statistically significant improvement in modified Harris hip score (MHHS) in the last follow-up at 9 months later in favor to DMC group compared with BHA group (P<0.001). The postoperative MHHS in the last follow-up of DMC ranged from 68 to 92 with the mean of 85.96±5.47, whereas in BHA group, ranged from 60 to 89 with the mean of 78.04±8.40. Conclusion THA may be a preferred management option for active elderly patients over 75 years, which can provide superior hip function and life quality with acceptable risks. Strict management should be followed to prevent dislocation after a THA, especially within the first 6 months.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
半关节置换术与三极全髋关节置换术治疗老年移位型股骨颈骨折
背景:移位性股骨颈骨折(DFNFs)在老年患者中越来越常见。髋关节置换术,推荐治疗DFNF,包括全髋关节置换术(THA)和半髋关节置换术(HA)。THA在年轻患者中优于HA。然而,对于75岁以上的老年人,由于身体虚弱和体力需求较低,更大的手术创伤和更高的脱位率是否会抵消THA的优势,这一点值得关注。目的比较双活动全髋关节置换术和双极半关节置换术(BHA)治疗FNFs的临床评分、脱位率和功能结局,以及哪种方法更成功。患者和方法对50例dfnf患者进行了一项比较随机前瞻性研究。所有病例均在河湾大学附属医院接受手术治疗,将患者分为两组,第一组采用双活动杯全髋关节置换术,第二组采用BHA。在2020年2月至2021年4月的研究期间,对病史进行了全面分析,详细检查并采集了主要样本。结果DMC组患者9个月末次随访时改良Harris髋关节评分(MHHS)明显优于BHA组(P<0.001)。DMC组术后末次随访MHHS为68 ~ 92,平均85.96±5.47;BHA组术后MHHS为60 ~ 89,平均78.04±8.40。结论THA可能是75岁以上活跃老年患者的首选治疗方案,在可接受的风险下可提供良好的髋关节功能和生活质量。应严格管理,以防止髋关节置换术后脱位,特别是在前6个月内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are olecranon osteotomies preferred to triceps-elevating approaches in intraarticular distal humerus fractures? A literature review Comparative study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by strut laminar autograft versus cage in degenerative lumbar spine diseases Distal fibula locked plate versus nonlocked plate for treatment of Danis Weber type B fracture comparative prospective study Assessment of lateral malleolus weber C fractures’ outcomes in patients undergoing syndesmosis-only fixation versus syndesmosis and fibular fixation Anterior odontoid lag screw fixation in type II odontoid fractures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1