S Pombo-Alonso, I Gabarain, N Nunes, G De la Herrán
{"title":"Managing B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures: ORIF vs stem-revision.","authors":"S Pombo-Alonso, I Gabarain, N Nunes, G De la Herrán","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The gold-standard treatment for Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures is revision arthroplasty. This procedure can be prolonged and complex, posing challenges for patients with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status. Recently, osteosynthesis has been proposed as an alternative treatment for B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) in frail patients, though its efficacy compared to revision arthroplasty has not been studied in detail.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted from 2012 to 2022, comparing complications, mortality, length of stay, gait ability, hemoglobin decrease, and blood transfusion rates between 44 patients undergoing treatment for B2 or B3 PPF with either stem-revision arthroplasty (n = 28) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws (n = 16).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed no significant differences in mortality, complications, hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, or length of stay between the two groups. In the stem-revision group, 11 patients (60.7 %) experienced a medical complication, while 7 patients (43.8 %) in the ORIF group had complications (p = 0.778). The mortality rate within the first year post-surgery was 17.9 % (5 patients) in the stem-revision group compared to 18.8 % (3 patients) in the ORIF group (p = 0.943). Surgical complications occurred in 2 patients (7.1 %) in the stem-revision group and in 4 patients (25 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.101). Blood transfusions were required in 17 patients (60.7 %) in the stem-revision group and in 8 patients (50 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.829).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that ORIF is an acceptable treatment option for patients with B2 or B3 PFF, especially for those with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status who may not tolerate revision arthroplasty. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":94042,"journal":{"name":"Injury","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2024.111789","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
Background: The gold-standard treatment for Vancouver type B2 and B3 fractures is revision arthroplasty. This procedure can be prolonged and complex, posing challenges for patients with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status. Recently, osteosynthesis has been proposed as an alternative treatment for B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) in frail patients, though its efficacy compared to revision arthroplasty has not been studied in detail.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from 2012 to 2022, comparing complications, mortality, length of stay, gait ability, hemoglobin decrease, and blood transfusion rates between 44 patients undergoing treatment for B2 or B3 PPF with either stem-revision arthroplasty (n = 28) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws (n = 16).
Results: The results showed no significant differences in mortality, complications, hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, or length of stay between the two groups. In the stem-revision group, 11 patients (60.7 %) experienced a medical complication, while 7 patients (43.8 %) in the ORIF group had complications (p = 0.778). The mortality rate within the first year post-surgery was 17.9 % (5 patients) in the stem-revision group compared to 18.8 % (3 patients) in the ORIF group (p = 0.943). Surgical complications occurred in 2 patients (7.1 %) in the stem-revision group and in 4 patients (25 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.101). Blood transfusions were required in 17 patients (60.7 %) in the stem-revision group and in 8 patients (50 %) in the ORIF group (p = 0.829).
Conclusions: This study suggests that ORIF is an acceptable treatment option for patients with B2 or B3 PFF, especially for those with severe medical comorbidities and reduced physical status who may not tolerate revision arthroplasty. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
