Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with compaction compared with broaching in cementless THA: a single-center study of 6,788 hips.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Øystein Høvik, Arild Aamodt, Einar Amlie, Einar Andreas Sivertsen
{"title":"Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with compaction compared with broaching in cementless THA: a single-center study of 6,788 hips.","authors":"Øystein Høvik, Arild Aamodt, Einar Amlie, Einar Andreas Sivertsen","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2024.41341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a significant complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although biomechanical studies have indicated that the technique by which the femoral canal is prepared plays a role, few clinical studies have reported on how this might affect the fracture risk. This study compares the fracture risk between compaction and broaching with toothed instruments in cementless THA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospectively collected data from the quality register of a high-volume hospital was used. All primary arthroplasties using the Corail stem (DePuy Synthes) were included. All femoral fractures occurring within the first 90 days after the operation were included in the analysis. We determined the relative risk of sustaining PFF with compaction compared with broaching and adjusted for confounders (sex, age group, BMI, and use of a collared stem) using multivariable Poisson regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 6,788 primary THAs performed between November 2009 and May 2023 were available for analysis. 66% were women and the mean age was 65.0 years. 129 (1.9%) fractures occurred during the first 90 days after the operation, 92 (2.3%) in the compaction group and 37 (1.3%) in the broaching group. The unadjusted relative risk of fracture in the compaction group compared with the broaching group was 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.66), whereas the adjusted relative risk was 1.70 (CI 1.10-2.70).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compaction was associated with more periprosthetic fractures than broaching (2.3% versus 1.3%) within 90 days after surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378731/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.41341","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 and purpose:  Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a significant complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although biomechanical studies have indicated that the technique by which the femoral canal is prepared plays a role, few clinical studies have reported on how this might affect the fracture risk. This study compares the fracture risk between compaction and broaching with toothed instruments in cementless THA.

Methods: Prospectively collected data from the quality register of a high-volume hospital was used. All primary arthroplasties using the Corail stem (DePuy Synthes) were included. All femoral fractures occurring within the first 90 days after the operation were included in the analysis. We determined the relative risk of sustaining PFF with compaction compared with broaching and adjusted for confounders (sex, age group, BMI, and use of a collared stem) using multivariable Poisson regression.

Results:  6,788 primary THAs performed between November 2009 and May 2023 were available for analysis. 66% were women and the mean age was 65.0 years. 129 (1.9%) fractures occurred during the first 90 days after the operation, 92 (2.3%) in the compaction group and 37 (1.3%) in the broaching group. The unadjusted relative risk of fracture in the compaction group compared with the broaching group was 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.66), whereas the adjusted relative risk was 1.70 (CI 1.10-2.70).

Conclusion: Compaction was associated with more periprosthetic fractures than broaching (2.3% versus 1.3%) within 90 days after surgery.

在无骨水泥全髋关节置换术中,压实法与拉削法相比较,术中和术后早期股骨假体周围骨折的风险增加:一项对6788个髋关节进行的单中心研究。
背景和目的:股骨假体周围骨折(PFF)是全髋关节置换术(THA)的一个重要并发症。尽管生物力学研究表明,股骨管道的制备技术起到了一定的作用,但很少有临床研究报道这种技术会如何影响骨折风险。本研究比较了无骨水泥 THA 中使用带齿器械压实和拉削两种方法的骨折风险:方法:采用从一家大医院的质量登记册中收集的前瞻性数据。所有使用Corail柄(DePuy Synthes)的初次关节置换术均被纳入研究范围。所有术后90天内发生的股骨骨折均纳入分析。我们使用多变量泊松回归法确定了压实法与拉削法发生PFF的相对风险,并对混杂因素(性别、年龄组、体重指数和使用有领骨干)进行了调整: 2009年11月至2023年5月期间进行的6788例初次THA手术可供分析。66%为女性,平均年龄为65.0岁。129例(1.9%)骨折发生在术后90天内,其中压实组92例(2.3%),拉床组37例(1.3%)。压实组与拉削组相比,未经调整的骨折相对风险为1.82(95%置信区间[CI] 1.25-2.66),而调整后的相对风险为1.70(CI 1.10-2.70):结论:在术后90天内,压合造成的假体周围骨折比拉接造成的骨折要多(2.3%对1.3%)。
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
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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