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
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol ; 34(4): 2055-2063, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38528273

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures involve stem stability and they have been classically treated with revision surgery. Crucial factors such as age, clinical comorbidities and functional status are often neglected. The current study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or femoral stem exchange. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that includes all Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fractures in a tertiary referral hospital from 2016 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1. Patients treated with an ORIF and Group 2. Patients treated with stem replacement. The outcomes that were compared between groups included demographic data, functional capacity, complications and mortality. RESULTS: 29 periprosthetic Vancouver B2 fractures were finally analyzed. 11 (37.9%) were treated with ORIF (Group 1) and 18 (62.1%) by stem replacement (Group 2). Surgery time (143 vs. 160 min), hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.5 g/dL) and hospital stance (25.5 vs. 29.6 days) were shorter in Group 1. According to complications, 18.2% of patients in the ORIF group had orthopedic complications compared with 44.4% in the revision group. In the revision group, 3 cases needed a two-stage revision and one of these revisions ended up with a resection arthroplasty (Girdlestone). The first-year mortality rate was 27% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2. DISCUSSION: ORIF treatment seems to be a less aggressive and complex procedure which can lead to a faster general recovery. Revision surgery can imply a higher risk of orthopedic complications which can be severe and may require further aggressive solutions. The ORIF group mortality was similar to the proximal femur fracture rate (20-30%). In conclusion, ORIF treatment seems to be a good option especially in fragile patients with low functional demand when anatomical reduction is possible.


Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Fijación Interna de Fracturas , Fracturas de Cadera , Fracturas Periprotésicas , Reoperación , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Femenino , Masculino , Fracturas Periprotésicas/cirugía , Fracturas Periprotésicas/etiología , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Fijación Interna de Fracturas/métodos , Fijación Interna de Fracturas/efectos adversos , Fracturas de Cadera/cirugía , Fracturas de Cadera/mortalidad , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/efectos adversos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Reducción Abierta/métodos , Reducción Abierta/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Prótesis de Cadera/efectos adversos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA