Journals / Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi (Yeni Adı: Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi) / 2002 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of the two types of endoprosthesis in the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures in elderly patients

Yaşlıların intrakapsüler kalça kırıklarının tedavisinde iki tıp endoprotezin sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması

Pages
1–4
Publication Date
2022-11-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Despite to their older design, Thompson type endoprosthesis still could be used with lower cost for the patients with low life expectancy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Some studies suggest that bipolar prosthesis have no obvious advantage over unipolar prosthesis in hip fractures of the elderly.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: Treatment results of forty patients over 75 years old, who had been operated for intracapsular hip fractures between 1996 and 1998, using Thompson or Protek type hip endoprosthesis, were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Despite to their older design, Thompson type endoprosthesis still could be used with lower cost for the patients with low life expectancy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: Some studies suggest that bipolar prosthesis have no obvious advantage over unipolar prosthesis in hip fractures of the elderly. The aim of this study is to evaluate if each of the two type of the unipolar prosthesis has advantage over the other. Patients and Methods: Treatment results of forty patients over 75 years old, who had been operated for intracapsular hip fractures between 1996 and 1998, using Thompson or Protek type hip endoprosthesis, were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were evaluated according to radiologie findings and their prefracture state, satisfaction with the operation and complications. Results: Average follow-up period of the patient was 37.9 months for the Thompson group and 38.5 months for the Protek group. There wasn't a significant difference according to early and late complications, and the Harris scores(average 69 for the Thompson group and average 71 for the Protek group) between two groups. Conclusion: Despite to their older design, Thompson type endoprosthesis still could be used with lower cost for the patients with low life expectancy.

Özet

Giriş: Yapılmış bazı çalışmalarda yaşlı hastalarda femur boynu kırıklarında bipolar protezlerin unipolar protezlere belirgin bir üstünlüklerinin olmadığı öne sürülmüştü. Bu çalışmada iki tip unipolar kalça protezinin yaşlı hastalarda birbirlerine üstünlüklerinin olup olmadığı araştırıldı. Hastalar ve Yöntem: Retrospektif olarak 1996 ve 1998 yılları arasında intrakapsüler kalça kırığı nedeniyle Thompson veya Protek tipi endoprotez kullanılan 75 yaş ve üzeri 40 hastanın tedavi sonuçları incelendi. Hastalar, radyolojik bulguların yanısıra kırık öncesi durumlarına, ameliyattan memnun olup olmadıklarına ve komplikasyonlarına göre değerlendirildiler. Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama izlem süreleri Thompson grubu için ortalama 37.9 ay, Protek grubu içinse ortalam 38.5 aydır. Postoperatif erken ve geç dönem komplikasyonları açısında bir fark saptanamazken, Harris skorları açısından da iki grup arasında belirgin bir fark yoktur (Thompson grubu ortalama 69, Protek grubu ortalama 71). Sonuç: Yaşlı yaşam beklentisi az olan hastalarda eski dizaynına rağmen Thompson tipi endoprotezler daha düşük maliyetleriyle hala etkin bîr şekilde kullanılabilirler.

🔖

Cite This Article

SOLAK, A. Ş., OĞUZ, T., BEKTAŞER, B., ADABAĞ, C. (2022). Comparison of the two types of endoprosthesis in the treatment of intracapsular hip fractures in elderly patients. Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi (Yeni Adı: Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi), Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 1–4. https://ajindex.com/articles/648739

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. D'Arcy J, Devas M. Treatment offractures of the femoral neck by replacement with the Thompson prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 1976; 58-B: 279-86
  2. Barnes R, Brown JT, Garden RS, Nicoll EA. Subcapital fracture of the femur: a prospective review. J Bone Joint Surg 1976; 58-B: 2-24
  3. Lu-Yao G, Keller RB, Littenberg B, Wennberg JE. Outcomes after displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta analysis of one hundred and six published reports. J Bone Joint Surg 1994; 76-A: 15-25
  4. Sikorski JM, Barrington R. Internal fixation versus hemiartroplasty for the displaced subcapital fracture of the femur: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg 1981; 63-B: 357-61
  5. LaBelle LW, Colwill JC, Swanson AB. Bateman bipolar hip arthroplasy for femoral neck fractures. A five-to-ten year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 1990; 251: 20-25
  6. Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Jagger C, Harper WM, Gregg PJ. Unipolar or bipolar prosthesis for displaced intracapsular hip fracture in octogenarians. A randomised prospective study. J Bone Joint Surgl996; 78-B: 391-4
  7. Wood DJ, Ions GK, Quinby JM, Gale DW, Stevens J. Factors which influence mortality after subcapital hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg 1992; 74-B: 199-202
  8. Staeheli JW, Frassica FJ, Simm FH. Prosthetic replacement of the femoral head for fracture of the femoral neck in patients who have Parkinson disease. J Bone Joint Surg 1988; 70-A: 565-8
  9. Bochner RM, Pellicci PM, Lynden JP. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty for fracture of the femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg 1988; 70-A: 1001-10
  10. Eiskjaer S, Gelineck J, Soballe K. Fractures of the femoral neck treated with the cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Orthopaedics 1989; 12: 1545-50
  11. Lausten GS, Vedel R Nielsen PM. Fractures of the femoral neck treated with a bipolar endoprosthesis. Clin Orthop 1987; 218: 63-7
  12. Swiontkowski MF. Intracapsular hip fractures. In: Browner BD, Jupiter JB, Levine AM, Trafton PG. Eds. Skeletal trauma: fractures, dislocations and ligamentous injuries. Philedelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1992: 1369-1442
  13. Berry DJ, Garvin KL, Lee SH, Maloney WJ, Paprosky WG, Steinberg ME, Wasielewski RC. Hip and pelvis: reconstruction. In: Beaty JH Ed.Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 6, AAOS, Rosemont 1999: 455-92.