Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Fractures with Plate and Screws and With Retrograde Intramedullary Nail: Indications, Limits and Medium-Term Follow-Up

L. Gurrieri
{"title":"Treatment of Periprosthetic Knee Fractures with Plate and Screws and With Retrograde Intramedullary Nail: Indications, Limits and Medium-Term Follow-Up","authors":"L. Gurrieri","doi":"10.46889/josr.2022.3214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Periprosthetic knee fracture occur most frequently around the distal femur and are frequently complicated due to poor bone quality and comorbidities. Surgical treatment is typically necessary and requires varied techniques of open fixation, intramedullary fixation, or revision arthroplasty, due to fracture classification. The aim of the study is to report the results obtained in the treatment of periprosthetic knee fractures, comparing the results of two surgical techniques, retrograde intramedullary nail and ORIF with plate and screws.\n\nAt our institute, a sample of 23 patients with periprosthetic knee fracture were surgically treated.\n\nIn detail, our patient cohort consisted of 13 women (56.52%) and 10 men (43.48%) with a mean age of 71.91 years (SD ± 12.05) whose mean follow-up was 19.14 months (SD ± 9.90). In terms of treatment, 7 of 23 patients (30.43%) were treated with retrograde Intramedullary Nail (IMN), 2 patients (8.70%) underwent to revision of the prosthesis and 14 patients (60.87%) were treated with plate and screws (ORIF). The clinical evaluation was performed using two different clinical scores as reference, the Lysholm score and the Sanders score.\n\nThe goal of treatment of periprosthetic knee fractures should be an early mobilization of the patient, in order to reduce the risk of prolonged immobilization, limiting surgical risks.\n\nIntramedullary nailing reduces blood loss and provides for shorter surgical times. However, it does not allow an anatomical reduction of the fracture and it is not always possible to achieve, due to the conformation of the prosthetic box. The mean results obtained from the evaluation by Lysholm Score was 58.75 ± 10.46 in group treated with IMN and 63.60 ± 6,82 in the group treated with ORIF. Sanders Functional Evaluation Score was 63.60 ± 6,82 in group treated with IMN and 28.26 ± 6.01 in the groups treated with ORIF. The results obtained are similar to the literature. Student’s t-test showed no statistical significance (p-value >0.05). Fractures healed on average at 4 months. We observed a case of mobilization of the nail. Intramedullary nailing reduces blood loss and provides for shorter surgical times. However, it does not allow an anatomical reduction and it is not always possible to achieve, due to the conformation of the prosthetic box.\n\nThe ORIF with plate and screws allows an anatomical reduction of the fracture, but involves in greater risks. It appears, therefore, more suitable in relatively young subjects. The reduction and synthesis with MIPO technique appears a good compromise. However, it is not very effective in comminuted and multi-fragmentary fractures.","PeriodicalId":382112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science and Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46889/josr.2022.3214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Periprosthetic knee fracture occur most frequently around the distal femur and are frequently complicated due to poor bone quality and comorbidities. Surgical treatment is typically necessary and requires varied techniques of open fixation, intramedullary fixation, or revision arthroplasty, due to fracture classification. The aim of the study is to report the results obtained in the treatment of periprosthetic knee fractures, comparing the results of two surgical techniques, retrograde intramedullary nail and ORIF with plate and screws. At our institute, a sample of 23 patients with periprosthetic knee fracture were surgically treated. In detail, our patient cohort consisted of 13 women (56.52%) and 10 men (43.48%) with a mean age of 71.91 years (SD ± 12.05) whose mean follow-up was 19.14 months (SD ± 9.90). In terms of treatment, 7 of 23 patients (30.43%) were treated with retrograde Intramedullary Nail (IMN), 2 patients (8.70%) underwent to revision of the prosthesis and 14 patients (60.87%) were treated with plate and screws (ORIF). The clinical evaluation was performed using two different clinical scores as reference, the Lysholm score and the Sanders score. The goal of treatment of periprosthetic knee fractures should be an early mobilization of the patient, in order to reduce the risk of prolonged immobilization, limiting surgical risks. Intramedullary nailing reduces blood loss and provides for shorter surgical times. However, it does not allow an anatomical reduction of the fracture and it is not always possible to achieve, due to the conformation of the prosthetic box. The mean results obtained from the evaluation by Lysholm Score was 58.75 ± 10.46 in group treated with IMN and 63.60 ± 6,82 in the group treated with ORIF. Sanders Functional Evaluation Score was 63.60 ± 6,82 in group treated with IMN and 28.26 ± 6.01 in the groups treated with ORIF. The results obtained are similar to the literature. Student’s t-test showed no statistical significance (p-value >0.05). Fractures healed on average at 4 months. We observed a case of mobilization of the nail. Intramedullary nailing reduces blood loss and provides for shorter surgical times. However, it does not allow an anatomical reduction and it is not always possible to achieve, due to the conformation of the prosthetic box. The ORIF with plate and screws allows an anatomical reduction of the fracture, but involves in greater risks. It appears, therefore, more suitable in relatively young subjects. The reduction and synthesis with MIPO technique appears a good compromise. However, it is not very effective in comminuted and multi-fragmentary fractures.
钢板螺钉和逆行髓内钉治疗膝关节假体周围骨折:适应症、局限性和中期随访
膝关节假体周围骨折最常发生在股骨远端周围,并且由于骨质量差和合并症而经常复杂。手术治疗通常是必要的,由于骨折的分类,需要多种技术,包括开放固定、髓内固定或翻修关节置换术。本研究的目的是报道膝关节假体周围骨折的治疗结果,比较两种手术技术的结果,逆行髓内钉和ORIF结合钢板和螺钉。在我所,23例膝关节假体周围骨折患者接受手术治疗。其中女性13例(56.52%),男性10例(43.48%),平均年龄71.91岁(SD±12.05),平均随访19.14个月(SD±9.90)。治疗方面,23例患者中有7例(30.43%)采用逆行髓内钉(IMN), 2例(8.70%)采用假体翻修,14例(60.87%)采用钢板螺钉(ORIF)。临床评价采用Lysholm评分和Sanders评分作为参考。膝关节假体周围骨折的治疗目标应该是尽早使患者活动,以减少长时间固定的风险,限制手术风险。髓内钉可减少失血,缩短手术时间。然而,它不允许骨折的解剖复位,而且由于假体盒的构象,它并不总是可能实现。IMN组Lysholm评分平均为58.75±10.46,ORIF组平均为63.60±6.82。IMN组Sanders功能评价评分为63.60±6.82分,ORIF组为28.26±6.01分。所得结果与文献相似。学生t检验差异无统计学意义(p值>0.05)。骨折平均在4个月愈合。我们观察了一个病例的移动的指甲。髓内钉可减少失血,缩短手术时间。然而,由于假体盒的构象,它不允许解剖复位,并且并不总是可以实现。带钢板和螺钉的ORIF可以在解剖上复位骨折,但风险较大。因此,它似乎更适合于相对年轻的受试者。用MIPO技术还原和合成是一个很好的折衷方案。然而,它对粉碎性骨折和多碎片性骨折不是很有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信