H. Kan, A. McBride, A. Mclean, W. O’Callaghan, H. Khan, P. Gallie
{"title":"Modular Versus Monoblock Hemiarthroplasty in Trauma: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes","authors":"H. Kan, A. McBride, A. Mclean, W. O’Callaghan, H. Khan, P. Gallie","doi":"10.2174/1874325001913010053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Displaced intraarticular neck of femur fractures for low-demand patients are primarily managed with hemiarthroplasty. The optimal implant design for modularity is unclear. Globally and within Australia, the use of monoblock implants varies significantly by location; however, monoblock use is decreasing in Australia in favour of modular systems, with little evidence-based explanation. This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of monoblock and modular hemiarthroplasties.\n \n \n \n This retrospective cohort study involved patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty for neck-of-femur fractures between 2009 and 2013 at the Gold Coast University Hospital. Leg length and femoral offset were measured from post-operative pelvic radiographs. Revision and mortality rates were extracted from hospital medical records and Australian Joint Registry data.\n \n \n \n A total of 249 patients were evaluated (112 with modular and 147 with monoblock implants). Patient demographics were comparable between the treatment groups; however, the monoblock group comprised significantly older persons. No between-group differences in leg length discrepancies were identified. Femoral offset was under-restored on average by 5.86mm (p<0.05) compared to the uninjured side within the monoblock group. Mortality rates were significantly higher in the monoblock group (23% vs 12%, P=0.026) at the 1-year mark. No significant between-group differences were found in 30-day mortality, length of stay, or revision rates.\n \n \n \n Modular hemiarthroplasty was superior for restoring offset in our cohort, but no group differences were noted for leg length. While modular implants seemed better for restoring normal hip anatomy and were associated with a lower 1-year mortality rate, no other advantages were found.\n","PeriodicalId":23060,"journal":{"name":"The Open Orthopaedics Journal","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Orthopaedics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001913010053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Displaced intraarticular neck of femur fractures for low-demand patients are primarily managed with hemiarthroplasty. The optimal implant design for modularity is unclear. Globally and within Australia, the use of monoblock implants varies significantly by location; however, monoblock use is decreasing in Australia in favour of modular systems, with little evidence-based explanation. This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of monoblock and modular hemiarthroplasties.
This retrospective cohort study involved patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty for neck-of-femur fractures between 2009 and 2013 at the Gold Coast University Hospital. Leg length and femoral offset were measured from post-operative pelvic radiographs. Revision and mortality rates were extracted from hospital medical records and Australian Joint Registry data.
A total of 249 patients were evaluated (112 with modular and 147 with monoblock implants). Patient demographics were comparable between the treatment groups; however, the monoblock group comprised significantly older persons. No between-group differences in leg length discrepancies were identified. Femoral offset was under-restored on average by 5.86mm (p<0.05) compared to the uninjured side within the monoblock group. Mortality rates were significantly higher in the monoblock group (23% vs 12%, P=0.026) at the 1-year mark. No significant between-group differences were found in 30-day mortality, length of stay, or revision rates.
Modular hemiarthroplasty was superior for restoring offset in our cohort, but no group differences were noted for leg length. While modular implants seemed better for restoring normal hip anatomy and were associated with a lower 1-year mortality rate, no other advantages were found.
对于低需求患者,移位的股骨关节内颈骨折主要采用半关节置换术。模块化的最佳植入物设计尚不清楚。在全球和澳大利亚境内,单块植入物的使用因地点而异;然而,在澳大利亚,模块化系统的使用正在减少,几乎没有证据支持的解释。本研究旨在比较单块半关节置换术和模块化半关节置换术的放射学和临床结果。这项回顾性队列研究涉及2009年至2013年间在黄金海岸大学医院接受股骨颈骨折半关节置换术的患者。术后骨盆x线片测量腿长和股骨偏移量。修正率和死亡率是从医院病历和澳大利亚联合登记处的数据中提取的。共有249名患者接受了评估(112名采用模块化种植体,147名采用单块种植体)。两组患者人口统计数据具有可比性;然而,单块组明显由老年人组成。未发现组间腿长差异。与未损伤侧相比,单块组股骨偏位平均缺损5.86mm (p<0.05)。1年后,单块组的死亡率明显更高(23% vs 12%, P=0.026)。在30天死亡率、住院时间或复查率方面,组间无显著差异。在我们的队列中,模块化半关节置换术在恢复偏位方面优于对照组,但在腿长方面没有组间差异。虽然模块化植入物似乎更好地恢复了正常的髋关节解剖结构,并且与较低的1年死亡率相关,但没有发现其他优势。