Dataset Information

Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis.

ABSTRACT: To examine the mortality and implant survivorship of proximal femoral replacement (PFR), revision total hip arthroplasty (REV) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of acute periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur, we retrospectively reviewed 97 consecutive acute periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures from 2000 to 2010. Three groups were defined: PFR (n=21), REV (n=19), and ORIF (n=57). Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, implant failure, and reoperation. Competing Risks survival analysis of overall mortality during the mean 35-month follow-up showed no statistical difference between the three groups (P=0.65; 12 and 60 month mortality for PFR: 37%, 45%; REV: 16%, 46%; ORIF: 14%, 100%). Implant survival was worse for the PFR group (P=0.03, 12 and 60-month implant failure rate for PFR: 5%, 39%; REV: 7%, 7%; ORIF 2%, 2%). We conclude that PFR as compared with REV or ORIF may have worse medium-term implant survival, primarily due to instability and dislocation.

SUBMITTER: Colman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4096551 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis.

Colman Matthew M Choi Lisa L Chen Antonia A Crossett Lawrence L Tarkin Ivan I McGough Richard R

The Journal of arthroplasty 20130712 2

To examine the mortality and implant survivorship of proximal femoral replacement (PFR), revision total hip arthroplasty (REV) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of acute periprosthetic fractures of the proximal femur, we retrospectively reviewed 97 consecutive acute periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures from 2000 to 2010. Three groups were defined: PFR (n=21), REV (n=19), and ORIF (n=57). Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, implant failure, and reoperation. ...[more]

PMID: 23856062

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMonoblock taper fluted stems have been reliably used to treat proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures (PFF) and femoral aseptic loosening (AL). Although proximal femoral remodeling has been observed around the Wagner Self-Locking (SL) stem, the exact characteristics of this process are yet to be established. Our aim was to compare the remodeling that takes place after femoral revisions for PFF and AL.MethodsConsecutive patients between January 2015 and December 2017 undergoing femoral revision using the Wagner SL stem for PFF or AL without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) or bone grafting were selected from our database. Radiological follow-up was performed using plain antero-posterior hip radiographs taken postoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months and at 24 months. The Global Radiological Score (GRxS) was utilized by four blinded observers. Intra and interobserver variability was calculated. Secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Hip Score and the Visual Analog Scale for pain.ResultsWe identified 20 patients from our database, 10 PFF and 10 AL cases. The severity of AL was Paprosky 2 in 2 cases, Paprosky 3A in 2 cases and Paprosky 3B in 6. PFF were classified as Vancouver B2 in 7 cases and Vancouver B3 in 3 cases. Patients undergoing femoral revision for PFF regained 89% (GRxS: 17.7/20) of their bone stock by 6 months, whilst patients with AL, required almost 2 years to achieve similar reconstitution of proximal femoral bony architecture 86% (GRxS: 17.1/20). Inter-observer reproducibility for numerical GRxS values showed a "good" correlation with 0.68, whilst the intra-observer agreement was "very good" with 0.89. Except immediate after the revision, we found a significant difference between the GRxS results of the two groups at each timepoint with pair-wise comparisons. Functional results were similar in the two groups. We were not able to show a correlation between GRxS and functional results.ConclusionsProximal femoral bone stock reconstitutes much quicker around PFF, than in the cases of AL, where revision is performed without an ETO. The accuracy of GRxS measurements on plain radiographs showed good reproducibility, making it suitable for everyday use in a revision arthroplasty practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS) for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures, including the available evidence drawn from the literature.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to identify available and relevant randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative observational studies regarding PFNA compared against DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus Online up to February 12, 2022. Data from the included studies were extracted independently by 2 reviewers and analyzed using RevMan 5.3, and the quality of the studies was assessed.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies were recruited and met the inclusion criteria, which consisted of 1332 patients with PFNA and 1271 patients with DHS. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the DHS, PFNA exhibited a beneficial role in postoperative Harris Hip Scores, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, fracture healing time and full weight-bearing time, limb shortening, cutout, reoperation, union problems, the varus collapse of the femoral head/neck, and infection; however, DHS was superior to PFNA in hidden blood loss (relative risk [RR] = 139.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] [136.18, 143.43], P < .00001), postoperation drainage (RR = -17.85, 95% CI [-30.10, -5.60], P = .004), total blood loss (RR = 50.34, 95% CI [42.99, 57.69], P < .00001), and femoral shaft fracture (RR = 4.72, 95% CI [1.15, 19.32], P = .03) treated by DHS were significantly decreased, compared with those by PFNA; however, no significant differences were observed in tip-apex distance, fixation failures, screw migration, or other complicants between the 2 surgical methods.ConclusionAnalysis of a large number of relevant clinical indicators available shows that PFNA has better clinical manifestation than DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.

Dataset Information

Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis.

Publications

Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets