4.5 Article

Reduced periprosthetic fracture rate when changing from a tapered polished stem to an anatomical stem for cemented hip arthroplasty: an observational prospective cohort study with a follow-up of 2 years

期刊

ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 427-432

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1624339

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose - Straight collarless polished tapered stems have been linked to an increased risk for periprosthetic femur fractures in comparison with anatomically shaped stems, especially in elderly patients. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of an orthopedic department's full transition from the use of a cemented collarless, polished, tapered stem to a cemented anatomic stem on the cumulative incidence of postoperative periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Patients and methods - This prospective single-center cohort study comprises a consecutive series of 1,077 patients who underwent a cemented hip arthroplasty using either a collarless polished tapered stem (PTS group, n = 543) or an anatomic stem (AS group, n = 534). We assessed the incidence of PPF 2 years postoperatively and used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, ASA class, cognitive impairment, BMI, diagnosis, and surgical approach for outcome analysis. Results - Mean age at primary surgery was 82 years (49-102), 73% of the patients were female, and 75% underwent surgery for a femoral neck fracture. The PPF rate was lowered from 3.3% (n = 18) in the PTS group to 0.4% (n = 2) in the AS group. The overall complication rate was also lowered from 8.8% in the PTS group to 4.5% in the AS group. In the regression model only cognitive dysfunction (HR 3.8, 95% CI 1.4-10) and the type of stem (PTS vs AS, HR 0.1, CI 0.0-0.5) were correlated with outcome. Interpretation - For elderly patients with poor bone quality use of cemented anatomic stems leads to a substantial reduction in periprosthetic fracture rate without increasing other complications.

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