ORIF或翻修关节置换术治疗老年假体松动患者假体周围骨折的结果:单独内固定是合理的治疗策略吗?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Marie Le Baron, Alessandra Cipolla, Thibaut Battut, Thierry Bégué, Xavier Flecher, Matthieu Ehlinger
{"title":"ORIF或翻修关节置换术治疗老年假体松动患者假体周围骨折的结果:单独内固定是合理的治疗策略吗?","authors":"Marie Le Baron, Alessandra Cipolla, Thibaut Battut, Thierry Bégué, Xavier Flecher, Matthieu Ehlinger","doi":"10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Periprosthetic fractures around the knee (TKAPF) often occur in old patients with concomitant diseases. Like any other fragility fracture, the aim of TKAPF management should be a patient-specific strategy considering clinical factors and associated comorbidities. The aim of the present study was to analyse if, in selected groups of unfit patients, osteosynthesis alone without revision even in cases of implant loosening (SOFCOT type 2 and 3) could be a good compromise to avoid invasive surgery and to reduce the mortality rate with reasonable results. The hypothesis was that for TKAPF SOFCOT type 2 and 3 there was no difference in survival rate between a group of patients treated by open reduction and internal fixation only compared to a group treated by revision of existing implant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 62 patients with a TKAPF and a loose implant classified as SOFCOT type 2 or 3 who have been surgical treated were included. The mean age of the population was 81.1 ± 10.3 years. Female rate was 92% (n = 57). The majority of patients had an ASA 2 or 3 score (n = 52, 83.9%). The pre-operative Parker score was 6.1 ± 2.5. Two groups were created to be compared in terms of results and complications: a group of 18 patients operated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF group) with a plate and a group of 44 patients operated by total knee arthroplasty revision (revision group) with or without plate osteosynthesis associated. Mortality and re-operations for mechanical complications were examined as the primary endpoint. Time to full weight-bearing (in weeks), time to bone union (in weeks) other complications such as infection and haematoma rate were collected as secondary endpoint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. The re-revision rates were respectively 15,9% in revision group, 22,2% in ORIF group. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for mechanical complications or re-revision. The survival endpoint at 2 years follow up was 88.9% (95% CI: 78.1-94.5) without differences between the groups (p = 0.64). Time to bone union was significantly longer (15.9 weeks) in the ORIF group compared to 8.6 weeks for the revision group but with a higher bone union rate in the ORIF group (p = 0.003) as well as the time to full weight-bearing (ORIF group 8.9 weeks compared to 1.7 weeks for the revision group P < 0.001). More infections were reported in the ORIF group and a higher risk of haematoma and bleeding in the revision group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite longer time to bone union and time to full weight-bearing, open reduction and internal fixation with plate for TKAPF with a loose component in selected older and unfit patients does not increase the risk of re-operation or mortality compared to a more invasive revision arthroplasty strategy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, comparative retrospective study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54664,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","volume":" ","pages":"104326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of ORIF or revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic knee fractures in older patients with implant loosening: Is internal fixation alone a reasonable treatment strategy?\",\"authors\":\"Marie Le Baron, Alessandra Cipolla, Thibaut Battut, Thierry Bégué, Xavier Flecher, Matthieu Ehlinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104326\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Periprosthetic fractures around the knee (TKAPF) often occur in old patients with concomitant diseases. Like any other fragility fracture, the aim of TKAPF management should be a patient-specific strategy considering clinical factors and associated comorbidities. The aim of the present study was to analyse if, in selected groups of unfit patients, osteosynthesis alone without revision even in cases of implant loosening (SOFCOT type 2 and 3) could be a good compromise to avoid invasive surgery and to reduce the mortality rate with reasonable results. The hypothesis was that for TKAPF SOFCOT type 2 and 3 there was no difference in survival rate between a group of patients treated by open reduction and internal fixation only compared to a group treated by revision of existing implant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 62 patients with a TKAPF and a loose implant classified as SOFCOT type 2 or 3 who have been surgical treated were included. The mean age of the population was 81.1 ± 10.3 years. Female rate was 92% (n = 57). The majority of patients had an ASA 2 or 3 score (n = 52, 83.9%). The pre-operative Parker score was 6.1 ± 2.5. Two groups were created to be compared in terms of results and complications: a group of 18 patients operated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF group) with a plate and a group of 44 patients operated by total knee arthroplasty revision (revision group) with or without plate osteosynthesis associated. Mortality and re-operations for mechanical complications were examined as the primary endpoint. Time to full weight-bearing (in weeks), time to bone union (in weeks) other complications such as infection and haematoma rate were collected as secondary endpoint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. The re-revision rates were respectively 15,9% in revision group, 22,2% in ORIF group. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for mechanical complications or re-revision. The survival endpoint at 2 years follow up was 88.9% (95% CI: 78.1-94.5) without differences between the groups (p = 0.64). Time to bone union was significantly longer (15.9 weeks) in the ORIF group compared to 8.6 weeks for the revision group but with a higher bone union rate in the ORIF group (p = 0.003) as well as the time to full weight-bearing (ORIF group 8.9 weeks compared to 1.7 weeks for the revision group P < 0.001). More infections were reported in the ORIF group and a higher risk of haematoma and bleeding in the revision group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite longer time to bone union and time to full weight-bearing, open reduction and internal fixation with plate for TKAPF with a loose component in selected older and unfit patients does not increase the risk of re-operation or mortality compared to a more invasive revision arthroplasty strategy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, comparative retrospective study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"104326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104326\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2025.104326","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:膝关节假体周围骨折(TKAPF)常见于老年伴发疾病患者。像任何其他脆性骨折一样,TKAPF治疗的目标应该是考虑临床因素和相关合并症的患者特异性策略。本研究的目的是分析,在选择的不适合的患者组中,即使在植入物松动(SOFCOT 2型和3型)的情况下,单独进行骨固定而不进行翻修是否是一种很好的折衷方法,以避免侵入性手术,并以合理的结果降低死亡率。我们的假设是,对于TKAPF SOFCOT 2型和3型,仅接受切开复位和内固定治疗的患者与接受翻修现有种植体治疗的患者相比,生存率没有差异。方法:共纳入62例经手术治疗的TKAPF和松散种植体,分类为SOFCOT 2型或3型。人口平均年龄81.1±10.3岁。女性占92% (n = 57)。大多数患者的ASA评分为2或3分(n = 52, 83.9%)。术前Parker评分6.1±2.5。根据结果和并发症建立两组进行比较:一组18例患者采用钢板切开复位内固定(ORIF组),另一组44例患者采用全膝关节置换术翻修(翻修组),合并或不合并钢板。死亡率和机械并发症的再手术作为主要终点。收集到完全负重时间(周)、骨愈合时间(周)以及感染和血肿率等其他并发症作为次要终点。结果:中位随访时间为2年。翻修组和ORIF组的再翻修率分别为15.9%和22.2%。两组间机械性并发症或再翻修的发生率无统计学差异。2年随访的生存终点为88.9% (95% CI: 78.1-94.5),组间无差异(p = 0.64)。ORIF组的骨愈合时间(15.9周)明显高于翻修组的8.6周,但ORIF组的骨愈合率(p = 0.003)和完全负重时间(ORIF组8.9周比翻修组1.7周)更高。尽管骨愈合和完全负重需要更长的时间,但与更具侵入性的翻修性关节置换术策略相比,对于一些年龄较大且身体不健康的TKAPF患者,开放复位和钢板内固定治疗具有松散构件的TKAPF并不会增加再手术或死亡率的风险。证据等级:III,比较回顾性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes of ORIF or revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic knee fractures in older patients with implant loosening: Is internal fixation alone a reasonable treatment strategy?

Background: Periprosthetic fractures around the knee (TKAPF) often occur in old patients with concomitant diseases. Like any other fragility fracture, the aim of TKAPF management should be a patient-specific strategy considering clinical factors and associated comorbidities. The aim of the present study was to analyse if, in selected groups of unfit patients, osteosynthesis alone without revision even in cases of implant loosening (SOFCOT type 2 and 3) could be a good compromise to avoid invasive surgery and to reduce the mortality rate with reasonable results. The hypothesis was that for TKAPF SOFCOT type 2 and 3 there was no difference in survival rate between a group of patients treated by open reduction and internal fixation only compared to a group treated by revision of existing implant.

Methods: A total of 62 patients with a TKAPF and a loose implant classified as SOFCOT type 2 or 3 who have been surgical treated were included. The mean age of the population was 81.1 ± 10.3 years. Female rate was 92% (n = 57). The majority of patients had an ASA 2 or 3 score (n = 52, 83.9%). The pre-operative Parker score was 6.1 ± 2.5. Two groups were created to be compared in terms of results and complications: a group of 18 patients operated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF group) with a plate and a group of 44 patients operated by total knee arthroplasty revision (revision group) with or without plate osteosynthesis associated. Mortality and re-operations for mechanical complications were examined as the primary endpoint. Time to full weight-bearing (in weeks), time to bone union (in weeks) other complications such as infection and haematoma rate were collected as secondary endpoint.

Results: The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. The re-revision rates were respectively 15,9% in revision group, 22,2% in ORIF group. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for mechanical complications or re-revision. The survival endpoint at 2 years follow up was 88.9% (95% CI: 78.1-94.5) without differences between the groups (p = 0.64). Time to bone union was significantly longer (15.9 weeks) in the ORIF group compared to 8.6 weeks for the revision group but with a higher bone union rate in the ORIF group (p = 0.003) as well as the time to full weight-bearing (ORIF group 8.9 weeks compared to 1.7 weeks for the revision group P < 0.001). More infections were reported in the ORIF group and a higher risk of haematoma and bleeding in the revision group.

Conclusions: Despite longer time to bone union and time to full weight-bearing, open reduction and internal fixation with plate for TKAPF with a loose component in selected older and unfit patients does not increase the risk of re-operation or mortality compared to a more invasive revision arthroplasty strategy.

Level of evidence: III, comparative retrospective study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
26.10%
发文量
329
审稿时长
12.5 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) publishes original scientific work in English related to all domains of orthopaedics. Original articles, Reviews, Technical notes and Concise follow-up of a former OTSR study are published in English in electronic form only and indexed in the main international databases.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信