Cargando…

Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing

BACKGROUND: Pathologic fractures of the femoral intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric region require special consideration in terms of biomechanically stable fixation and durability of the implant. In addition, the type of surgery might also influence patient survival. We conducted this retrospectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fakler, Johannes KM, Hase, Franziska, Böhme, Jörg, Josten, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24314233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-7-37
_version_ 1782317177159811072
author Fakler, Johannes KM
Hase, Franziska
Böhme, Jörg
Josten, Christoph
author_facet Fakler, Johannes KM
Hase, Franziska
Böhme, Jörg
Josten, Christoph
author_sort Fakler, Johannes KM
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pathologic fractures of the femoral intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric region require special consideration in terms of biomechanically stable fixation and durability of the implant. In addition, the type of surgery might also influence patient survival. We conducted this retrospective study to evaluate the safety of modular proximal femur replacement compared to intramedullary nailing with patient survival being the primary and complications the secondary endpoint. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the records of 20 consecutive patients with actual pathologic fracture due to bone metastasis in the intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric part of the femur. The pathologic fractures were stabilized with a locked cephalomedullary nail in 12 patients and treated with en-bloc resection and modular proximal femur replacement in eight patients. RESULTS: In the tumor prosthesis group median patient survival was more than twice as high (4.5 months, IQR 2.3 – 16.5) than in the osteosynthesis group (2.0 months, IQR 0.3 – 20.5), but did not reach significance (p = 0.58). Besides, a significantly better preoperative general health status in patients with endoprosthetic reconstruction puts better survival into perspective. Median implant survivorship did not differ between groups with 2.5 (IQR 1.0 – 7.5) months for endoprothesis and 3.0 (IQR 0.3 – 11.0) months for osteosynthesis (p = 0.93). Complication rates were comparable with 25% in each group. CONCLUSION: Patient survival was not influenced by type of surgery or choice of implant. Preoperative general health condition and ambulatory capacity may aid in decision for type of surgery and improve patient safety, respectively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4029245
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40292452014-05-22 Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing Fakler, Johannes KM Hase, Franziska Böhme, Jörg Josten, Christoph Patient Saf Surg Research BACKGROUND: Pathologic fractures of the femoral intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric region require special consideration in terms of biomechanically stable fixation and durability of the implant. In addition, the type of surgery might also influence patient survival. We conducted this retrospective study to evaluate the safety of modular proximal femur replacement compared to intramedullary nailing with patient survival being the primary and complications the secondary endpoint. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the records of 20 consecutive patients with actual pathologic fracture due to bone metastasis in the intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric part of the femur. The pathologic fractures were stabilized with a locked cephalomedullary nail in 12 patients and treated with en-bloc resection and modular proximal femur replacement in eight patients. RESULTS: In the tumor prosthesis group median patient survival was more than twice as high (4.5 months, IQR 2.3 – 16.5) than in the osteosynthesis group (2.0 months, IQR 0.3 – 20.5), but did not reach significance (p = 0.58). Besides, a significantly better preoperative general health status in patients with endoprosthetic reconstruction puts better survival into perspective. Median implant survivorship did not differ between groups with 2.5 (IQR 1.0 – 7.5) months for endoprothesis and 3.0 (IQR 0.3 – 11.0) months for osteosynthesis (p = 0.93). Complication rates were comparable with 25% in each group. CONCLUSION: Patient survival was not influenced by type of surgery or choice of implant. Preoperative general health condition and ambulatory capacity may aid in decision for type of surgery and improve patient safety, respectively. BioMed Central 2013-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4029245/ /pubmed/24314233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-7-37 Text en Copyright © 2013 Fakler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Fakler, Johannes KM
Hase, Franziska
Böhme, Jörg
Josten, Christoph
Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
title Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
title_full Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
title_fullStr Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
title_full_unstemmed Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
title_short Safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
title_sort safety aspects in surgical treatment of pathological fractures of the proximal femur – modular endoprosthetic replacement vs. intramedullary nailing
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24314233
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-7-37
work_keys_str_mv AT faklerjohanneskm safetyaspectsinsurgicaltreatmentofpathologicalfracturesoftheproximalfemurmodularendoprostheticreplacementvsintramedullarynailing
AT hasefranziska safetyaspectsinsurgicaltreatmentofpathologicalfracturesoftheproximalfemurmodularendoprostheticreplacementvsintramedullarynailing
AT bohmejorg safetyaspectsinsurgicaltreatmentofpathologicalfracturesoftheproximalfemurmodularendoprostheticreplacementvsintramedullarynailing
AT jostenchristoph safetyaspectsinsurgicaltreatmentofpathologicalfracturesoftheproximalfemurmodularendoprostheticreplacementvsintramedullarynailing