4.5 Article

Postoperative periprosthetic fractures in patients with an Exeter stem due to a femoral neck fracture: cumulative incidence and surgical outcome

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 1683-1688

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2570-0

关键词

Periprosthetic femoral fracture; Hip fracture; Exeter stem; Hip prosthesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study is to report on the cumulative incidence and the outcome of surgically-treated postoperative PPFs in patients with femoral neck fractures treated with a THA or HA using an Exeter stem. Methods A consecutive series of patients operated during 1998-2010 due to a non-pathological femoral neck fracture using an Exeter stem were included in this cohort study. Patients were followed until 2012, or death, in order to obtain information about reoperations due to postoperative PPFs, and subsequent re-operations after surgery due to PPFs. In addition to local audit data the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's registry was used to identify patients who had been re-operated upon elsewhere in Sweden. ResultsA total of 2,757 patients (median age 82 years, 2,019 females) were identified and included in the study. Of these patients, 63 (2.3 %) sustained a postoperative PPF that was treated surgically. The majority of the Vancouver B1 (n = 21/23) and C (n = 14/14) fractures were treated using open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), whereas most of the B2 (n = 16/25) fractures and the only B3 fracture were treated with stem revision. Three (4.8 %) patients were subsequently re-operated upon due to fracture-related complications, all B2 fractures, and were treated with ORIF (n = 2) or stem revision (n = 1). Conclusion The cumulative incidence of surgically treated PPFs was considerable among patients with Exeter stems operated due to a femoral neck fracture. The re-operation rate due to fracture-related complications was highest among patients with B2 fractures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据