Dergiler / Joint diseases and related surgery / 2020 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 3

Femoral stem fractures after primary and revision hip replacements: A single-center experience

Sayfa
557–563
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The cortical window method can be considered as the second step if proximal extraction methods fail, and ETO should be considered at the last step if all techniques fail.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: This study aims to present our experience in the management of fractured femoral stems after primary and revision hip replacements by evaluating the clinical and radiographic characteristics and determining the effectiveness of the extraction methods.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Patients and methods: A total of 15 patients (5 males, 10 females; mean age 65.9 years; range, 49 to 87 years) who underwent revision hip replacement due to a fractured femoral stem between January 2005 and December 2019 were included in this retrospective study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The cortical window method can be considered as the second step if proximal extraction methods fail, and ETO should be considered at the last step if all techniques fail.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2005 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to present our experience in the management of fractured femoral stems after primary and revision hip replacements by evaluating the clinical and radiographic characteristics and determining the effectiveness of the extraction methods. Patients and methods: A total of 15 patients (5 males, 10 females; mean age 65.9 years; range, 49 to 87 years) who underwent revision hip replacement due to a fractured femoral stem between January 2005 and December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. The mechanisms and risk factors for failure as well as methods applied to extract fractured stem were analyzed through clinical and radiographic data. Results: Nine patients had fractured cemented femoral stems, while six patients had fractured fully porous coated cementless revision stems. Lack of proximal buttress in distally fixed femoral stems was detected in 11 patients and identified as the predominant mechanism resulting in fracture. The proximal extraction method with conventional revision instrumentation, the cortical window technique, and extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) were used in three, seven, and five cases, respectively. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that the lack of proximal buttress is the most common reason for femoral stem fracture. Moreover, the proximal extraction method was mostly ineffective in fully porous femoral stems. A step-by-step approach should be considered for the extraction of a broken stem. The cortical window method can be considered as the second step if proximal extraction methods fail, and ETO should be considered at the last step if all techniques fail.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AYCAN, O. E., ÇİMEN, O., ÖNER, A., KÖKSAL, A., AKGÜN, H., YAPICI, F., ÇAMURCU, Y. (2022). Femoral stem fractures after primary and revision hip replacements: A single-center experience. Joint diseases and related surgery, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 3, 557–563. https://ajindex.com/articles/559321

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Charnley J. Fracture of femoral prostheses in total hip replacement. A clinical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975;111:105-20
  2. Martens M, Aernoudt E, de Meester P, Ducheyne P, Mulier JC, de Langh R, et al. Factors in the mechanical failure of the femoral component in total hip prosthesis. Report of six fatigue fractures of the femoral stem and results of experimental loading tests. Acta Orthop Scand 1974;45:693-710
  3. Dall DM, Learmonth ID, Solomon MI, Miles AW, Davenport JM. Fracture and loosening of Charnley femoral stems. Comparison between first-generation and subsequent designs. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1993;75:259-65
  4. Della Valle AG, Becksaç B, Anderson J, Wright T, Nestor B, Pellicci PM, et al. Late fatigue fracture of a modern cemented [corrected] cobalt chrome stem for total hip arthroplasty: a report of 10 cases. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:1084-8
  5. Heck DA, Partridge CM, Reuben JD, Lanzer WL, Lewis CG, Keating EM. Prosthetic component failures in hip arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 1995;10:575-80
  6. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2017, Available at: https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows. net/shpr/r/Eng_Arsrapport_2017_Hoftprotes_final- Syx2fJPhMN.pdf. [Accessed: January 28, 2019]
  7. Wroblewski BM. The mechanism of fracture of the femoral prosthesis in total hip replacement. Int Orthop 1979;3:137-9
  8. Yates PJ, Quraishi NA, Kop A, Howie DW, Marx C, Swarts E. Fractures of modern high nitrogen stainless steel cemented stems: cause, mechanism, and avoidance in 14 cases. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:188-96
  9. Lakstein D, Eliaz N, Levi O, Backstein D, Kosashvili Y, Safir O, et al. Fracture of cementless femoral stems at the mid-stem junction in modular revision hip arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2011;93:57-65
  10. Matar HE, Selvaratnam V, Board TN, Purbach B, Porter ML, Kay PR, et al. Fractured Femoral Stems in Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasties Revisited: Wrightington Experience. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:1344-50
  11. Bolland BJ, Wilson MJ, Howell JR, Hubble MJ, Timperley AJ, Gie GA. An Analysis of Reported Cases of Fracture of the Universal Exeter Femoral Stem Prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:1318-22
  12. Buttaro M, Comba F, Zanotti G, Piccaluga F. Fracture of the C-Stem cemented femoral component in revision hip surgery using bone impaction grafting technique: report of 9 cases. Hip Int 2015;25:184-7
  13. Aribindi R, Barba M, Solomon MI, Arp P, Paprosky W. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am 1998;29: