Mid-term Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis after Acetabular Fracture.

Sharath K Ramanath, Tejas Tribhuvan, Uday Chandran, Rahul Hemant Shah, Ajay Kaushik, Sandesh Patil
{"title":"Mid-term Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis after Acetabular Fracture.","authors":"Sharath K Ramanath, Tejas Tribhuvan, Uday Chandran, Rahul Hemant Shah, Ajay Kaushik, Sandesh Patil","doi":"10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (<i>P</i><0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.</p>","PeriodicalId":73239,"journal":{"name":"Hip & pelvis","volume":"36 1","pages":"37-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10929540/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hip & pelvis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2024.36.1.37","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

Purpose: The prognosis of total hip replacement (THR) after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus THR following non-operative treatment of acetabular fractures is unclear. Few studies have been conducted in this regard. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to perform an assessment and compare the functional outcomes for study subjects in the ORIF and non-ORIF groups during the follow-up period compared to baseline.

Materials and methods: This longitudinal comparative study, which included 40 patients who underwent THR for either posttraumatic arthritis after fixation of an acetabular fracture or arthritis following conservative management of a fracture, was conducted for 60 months. Twenty-four patients had undergone ORIF, and 16 patients had undergone nonoperative/conservative management for acetabular fractures. Following THR, the patients were followed up for monitoring of functional outcomes for the Harris hip score (HHS) and comparison between the ORIF and non-ORIF groups was performed.

Results: The HHS showed significant improvement in both ORIF and non-ORIF groups. At the end of the mean follow-up period, no significant variation in scores was observed between the groups, i.e., ORIF group (91.61±6.64) compared to non-ORIF group (85.74±11.56). A significantly higher number of re-interventions were required for medial wall fractures and combined fractures compared to posterior fractures (P<0.05).

Conclusion: THR resulted in improved functional outcome during follow-up in both the groups; however, the ORIF group was observed to have better functional outcome. Re-intervention was not required for any of the posterior fractures at the end of the mean follow-up period.

全髋关节置换术治疗髋臼骨折后创伤性骨关节炎的中期效果。
目的:开放复位内固定术(ORIF)后的全髋关节置换术(THR)与非手术治疗髋臼骨折后的全髋关节置换术(THR)的预后尚不清楚。这方面的研究很少。因此,本研究的目的是评估和比较 ORIF 组和非 ORIF 组研究对象在随访期间与基线相比的功能结果:这项纵向比较研究包括 40 名因髋臼骨折固定后创伤后关节炎或骨折保守治疗后关节炎而接受全髋关节置换术的患者,为期 60 个月。其中 24 名患者接受了手术切除,16 名患者接受了髋臼骨折的非手术/保守治疗。全髋关节置换术后,对患者进行了随访,以监测哈里斯髋关节评分(HHS)的功能结果,并对 ORIF 组和非 ORIF 组进行了比较:结果:ORIF组和非ORIF组的HHS均有明显改善。在平均随访期结束时,ORIF组(91.61±6.64)与非ORIF组(85.74±11.56)相比,两组的评分无明显差异。与后方骨折相比,内侧壁骨折和合并骨折需要再次介入的次数明显较多:在随访期间,两组患者的 THR 均改善了功能预后;但 ORIF 组的功能预后更好。在平均随访期结束时,没有任何后方骨折需要再次介入治疗。
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
CiteScore
2.90
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