Effects of Cerclage Cabling on Preventing Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures When Using Cementless Stems for Unstable Femoral Neck Fractures

IF 3.4 2区医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Arthroplasty Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2024.04.085

{"title":"Effects of Cerclage Cabling on Preventing Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures When Using Cementless Stems for Unstable Femoral Neck Fractures","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2024.04.085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are serious complications in hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The rates of intraoperative (iPFFs) and postoperative PFFs (pPFFs) are higher in cementless stem cases than in cemented cases. This study aimed to investigate the effects of cerclage cabling on PFF prevention in cementless arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective study included 329 consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroplasty using a cementless stem for femoral neck fractures. A total of 159 and 170 patients were in the non-cabling and cabling groups, respectively. Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The PFF occurrence (iPFF and pPFF) rates, reoperation rates, operative time, and blood loss volume were compared between the groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The iPFF rate was significantly higher in the noncabling group (6.3%) than in the cabling group (0%, <em>P</em> < .001). The rate of pPFF was significantly higher in the non-cabling group (5.1%) than in the cabling group (0.6%; <em>P</em> = .016). All patients in the non-cabling group required reoperation (5.1%), whereas the patient in the cabling group was an ambulatory case and required no reoperation (0%, <em>P</em> = .003). No significant difference in either operative time or blood loss volume was observed between the non-cabling (50 minutes, 133 mL) and cabling (52 minutes, <em>P</em> = .244; 149 mL, <em>P</em> = .212, respectively) groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>When a cementless stem is used to treat unstable femoral neck fractures, cerclage cabling effectively prevents iPPF and pPPF without increasing surgical time or blood loss volume.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":"39 11","pages":"Pages 2807-2811"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540324004406","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) are serious complications in hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. The rates of intraoperative (iPFFs) and postoperative PFFs (pPFFs) are higher in cementless stem cases than in cemented cases. This study aimed to investigate the effects of cerclage cabling on PFF prevention in cementless arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures.

Methods

This retrospective study included 329 consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroplasty using a cementless stem for femoral neck fractures. A total of 159 and 170 patients were in the non-cabling and cabling groups, respectively. Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The PFF occurrence (iPFF and pPFF) rates, reoperation rates, operative time, and blood loss volume were compared between the groups.

Results

The iPFF rate was significantly higher in the noncabling group (6.3%) than in the cabling group (0%, P < .001). The rate of pPFF was significantly higher in the non-cabling group (5.1%) than in the cabling group (0.6%; P = .016). All patients in the non-cabling group required reoperation (5.1%), whereas the patient in the cabling group was an ambulatory case and required no reoperation (0%, P = .003). No significant difference in either operative time or blood loss volume was observed between the non-cabling (50 minutes, 133 mL) and cabling (52 minutes, P = .244; 149 mL, P = .212, respectively) groups.

Conclusions

When a cementless stem is used to treat unstable femoral neck fractures, cerclage cabling effectively prevents iPPF and pPPF without increasing surgical time or blood loss volume.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用无骨水泥柄治疗不稳定股骨颈骨折时，Cerclage电缆对预防假体周围股骨骨折的影响

背景：股骨假体周围骨折（PFF）是股骨颈骨折髋关节置换术的严重并发症。与有骨水泥的病例相比，无骨水泥柄病例的术中和术后 PFF 发生率更高。本研究旨在探讨在股骨颈骨折无骨水泥关节置换术中使用cerclage布线对预防PFF的影响：这项回顾性研究连续纳入了329例因股骨颈骨折使用无骨水泥柄进行髋关节置换术的患者。无骨干组和有骨干组分别共有159名和170名患者。两组患者的特征相当。比较了两组的PFF发生率（术中PFF [iPFF] 和术后PFF [pPFF]）、再手术率、手术时间和失血量：非布线组的 iPFF 率（6.3%）明显高于布线组（0%，P < 0.001）。非布线组的 pPFF 率（5.1%）明显高于布线组（0.6%；P = 0.016）。非布线组的所有患者都需要再次手术（5.1%），而布线组的患者是非卧床病例，无需再次手术（0%，P = 0.003）。非连接组（50分钟，133毫升）和连接组（52分钟，P = 0.244；149毫升，P = 0.212）的手术时间和失血量均无明显差异：结论：当使用无骨水泥柄治疗不稳定股骨颈骨折时，cerclage布线可有效防止iPPF和pPPF，而不会增加手术时间或失血量。

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

Journal of Arthroplasty 医学-整形外科

CiteScore

7.00

自引率

20.00%

发文量

734

审稿时长

48 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.