Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
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
2.
J Orthop Trauma ; 34(10): e377-e381, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32947588

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hospitals worldwide have postponed all nonessential surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, but non-COVID-19 patients are still in urgent need of care. Uncertainty about a patient's COVID-19 status risks infecting health care workers and non-COVID-19 inpatients. We evaluated the use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) screening for COVID-19 on admission for all patients with fractures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients older than 18 years admitted with low-energy fractures who were tested by RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 at any time during hospitalization. Two periods based on the applied testing protocol were defined. During the first period, patients were only tested because of epidemiological criteria or clinical suspicion based on fever, respiratory symptoms, or radiological findings. In the second period, all patients admitted for fracture treatment were screened by RT-qPCR. RESULTS: We identified 15 patients in the first period and 42 in the second. In total, 9 (15.8%) patients without clinical or radiological findings tested positive at any moment. Five (33.3%) patients tested positive postoperatively in the first period and 3 (7.1%) in the second period (P = 0.02). For clinically unsuspected patients, postoperative positive detection went from 3 of 15 (20%) during the first period to 2 of 42 (4.8%) in the second (P = 0.11). Clinical symptoms demonstrated high specificity (92.1%) but poor sensitivity (52.6%) for infection detection. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom-based screening for COVID-19 has shown to be specific but not sensitive. Negative clinical symptoms do not rule out infection. Protocols and separated areas are necessary to treat infected patients. RT-qPCR testing on admission helps minimize the risk of nosocomial and occupational infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus/genética , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , ARN Viral/análisis , Triaje/métodos , Heridas y Lesiones/diagnóstico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , España/epidemiología , Heridas y Lesiones/complicaciones , Heridas y Lesiones/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...