Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Arthroplasty ; 39(7): 1811-1819, 2024 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38244641

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with periprosthetic osteolysis or fracture between ipsilateral hip and knee arthroplasties are challenging to treat successfully. Long-stem implants, osteopenic bones, and patient comorbidities all represent considerable surgical challenges. Poor results of fracture fixation in this group, coupled with the desire to retain well-performing implants and minimize soft-tissue trauma led to the developmentof the custom cement-over megaprostheses (CCOM). The aims of the study were to evaluate implant survivals, complications, and patient outcomes in those undergoing CCOM within our institution. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CCOM between 2002 and 2022 was performed. We studied 34 cases, 33 patients, one patient underwent staged bilateral surgery with 26 women and 8 men. INDICATIONS: trauma (16), failure of implants /aseptic loosening (9), or joint pathology. The mean Charlson comorbidity index was 3.5 (range, 0 to 8). All patients were followed up (mean 75 months [range, 9 to 170]) at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter. The VAS, EuroQol-5D-3L and MSTS scores were collected at 1 year. RESULTS: Implant survival defined by the primary outcome (all-cause revision of the implant at any time point) at 12 months of 97% (32 of 33). In surviving patients, implant survival was 90% (18 of 20) and all 7 survived at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Implant survival including those in the primary outcome group and those free of infection at 12 months was 84.8% (28 of 33) and in surviving patients, implant survival was 70% (14 of 20) and 7 out of 7 at 5 and 10 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CCOM technique demonstrates good implant survivorships and satisfactory patient-reported outcomes in complex, often frail patients who have compromised bone stock. This series confirms the technique as an established alternative to total femoral replacement in these cases.


Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla , Cementos para Huesos , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Diseño de Prótesis , Falla de Prótesis , Reoperación , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/efectos adversos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/instrumentación , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/instrumentación , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/efectos adversos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Prótesis de la Rodilla/efectos adversos , Prótesis de Cadera/efectos adversos , Adulto , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA