Managing B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: ORIF vs stem-revision.

S Pombo-Alonso, I Gabarain, N Nunes, G De la Herrán
{"title":"Managing B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: ORIF vs stem-revision.","authors":"S Pombo-Alonso, I Gabarain, N Nunes, G De la Herrán","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The gold-standard treatment for Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures is revision arthroplasty. This procedure can be prolonged and complex, posing challenges for patients with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status. Recently, osteosynthesis has been proposed as an alternative treatment for B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) in frail patients, though its efficacy compared to revision arthroplasty has not been studied in detail.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted from 2012 to 2022, comparing complications, mortality, length of stay, gait ability, hemoglobin decrease, and blood transfusion rates between 44 patients undergoing treatment for B2 or B3 PPF with either stem-revision arthroplasty (n = 28) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws (n = 16).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed no significant differences in mortality, complications, hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, or length of stay between the two groups. In the stem-revision group, 11 patients (60.7 %) experienced a medical complication, while 7 patients (43.8 %) in the ORIF group had complications (p = 0.778). The mortality rate within the first year post-surgery was 17.9 % (5 patients) in the stem-revision group compared to 18.8 % (3 patients) in the ORIF group (p = 0.943). Surgical complications occurred in 2 patients (7.1 %) in the stem-revision group and in 4 patients (25 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.101). Blood transfusions were required in 17 patients (60.7 %) in the stem-revision group and in 8 patients (50 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.829).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that ORIF is an acceptable treatment option for patients with B2 or B3 PFF, especially for those with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status who may not tolerate revision arthroplasty. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":94042,"journal":{"name":"Injury","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2024.111789","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: The gold-standard treatment for Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures is revision arthroplasty. This procedure can be prolonged and complex, posing challenges for patients with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status. Recently, osteosynthesis has been proposed as an alternative treatment for B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) in frail patients, though its efficacy compared to revision arthroplasty has not been studied in detail.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from 2012 to 2022, comparing complications, mortality, length of stay, gait ability, hemoglobin decrease, and blood transfusion rates between 44 patients undergoing treatment for B2 or B3 PPF with either stem-revision arthroplasty (n = 28) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws (n = 16).

Results: The results showed no significant differences in mortality, complications, hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, or length of stay between the two groups. In the stem-revision group, 11 patients (60.7 %) experienced a medical complication, while 7 patients (43.8 %) in the ORIF group had complications (p = 0.778). The mortality rate within the first year post-surgery was 17.9 % (5 patients) in the stem-revision group compared to 18.8 % (3 patients) in the ORIF group (p = 0.943). Surgical complications occurred in 2 patients (7.1 %) in the stem-revision group and in 4 patients (25 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.101). Blood transfusions were required in 17 patients (60.7 %) in the stem-revision group and in 8 patients (50 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.829).

Conclusions: This study suggests that ORIF is an acceptable treatment option for patients with B2 or B3 PFF, especially for those with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status who may not tolerate revision arthroplasty. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings.

Level of evidence: IV.

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
处理 B2 股骨假体周围骨折:人工股骨头置换术与骨干修补术
背景:治疗温哥华B2型和B3型骨折的金标准是翻修关节置换术。这种手术时间长且复杂,对合并严重疾病和身体状况较差的患者来说是一种挑战。最近,有人提出了骨合成术,作为体弱患者B2股骨假体周围骨折(PFF)的替代治疗方法,但与翻修关节置换术相比,骨合成术的疗效尚未得到详细研究:方法: 2012年至2022年期间进行了一项回顾性研究,比较了44例接受干翻修关节置换术(28例)或钢板和螺钉切开复位内固定术(ORIF)治疗的B2或B3 PPF患者(16例)的并发症、死亡率、住院时间、步态能力、血红蛋白下降率和输血率:结果显示,两组患者在死亡率、并发症、血红蛋白下降率、输血率和住院时间方面无明显差异。骨干修补术组有11名患者(60.7%)出现医疗并发症,而骨干修补术组有7名患者(43.8%)出现并发症(P = 0.778)。骨干修补术组术后第一年的死亡率为17.9%(5名患者),而ORIF组为18.8%(3名患者)(p = 0.943)。干细胞修补术组有2名患者(7.1%)出现手术并发症,ORIF组有4名患者(25%)出现并发症(p = 0.101)。干细胞修补术组有17名患者(60.7%)需要输血,ORIF组有8名患者(50%)需要输血(p = 0.829):本研究表明,ORIF是B2或B3 PFF患者可接受的治疗选择,尤其是对于那些有严重医疗合并症和身体状况下降、可能无法忍受翻修关节置换术的患者。不过,还需要更多样本量和更长随访时间的进一步研究来证实这些发现:证据等级:IV。
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
Supraclavicular brachial plexus exploration and centralisation of services: An opinion from a national peripheral nerve injury referral unit. Outcomes following intensive allied health therapy in the acute hospital for trauma patients. Lived experiences of working-age polytrauma patients in Germany - A qualitative Analysis. The MOST (Mortality Score for TBI): A novel prediction model beyond CRASH-Basic and IMPACT-Core for isolated traumatic brain injury. Clinical effect on major trauma patients during simultaneous or overlapping presentations at an urban level I trauma center in Korea.
×
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