Cargando…

The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment

Introduction. The periprosthetic fracture of the femur is, in order of frequency, the fourth leading cause (5.9%) of surgical revision. Our study aims to demonstrate how the grafting of bone splint betters the outcomes. Materials. We treated 15 periprosthetic femoral fractures divided into two group...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carta, Serafino, Fortina, Mattia, Riva, Alberto, Meccariello, Luigi, Manzi, Enrico, Di Giovanni, Antonio, Ferrata, Paolo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27990462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2918735
_version_ 1782471711818514432
author Carta, Serafino
Fortina, Mattia
Riva, Alberto
Meccariello, Luigi
Manzi, Enrico
Di Giovanni, Antonio
Ferrata, Paolo
author_facet Carta, Serafino
Fortina, Mattia
Riva, Alberto
Meccariello, Luigi
Manzi, Enrico
Di Giovanni, Antonio
Ferrata, Paolo
author_sort Carta, Serafino
collection PubMed
description Introduction. The periprosthetic fracture of the femur is, in order of frequency, the fourth leading cause (5.9%) of surgical revision. Our study aims to demonstrate how the grafting of bone splint betters the outcomes. Materials. We treated 15 periprosthetic femoral fractures divided into two groups: PS composed of 8 patients treated with plates and splints and PSS involving 7 patients treated only with plates. The evaluation criteria for the two groups during the clinical and radiological follow-up were the quality of life measured by the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Modified Cincinnati Rating System Questionnaire (MCRSQ), bone healing measured by the Radiographic Union Score (RUS), postoperative complications, and mortality. The evaluation endpoint was set at 24 months for both groups (p < 0.05). Results. The surgery lasted an average of 124.5 minutes for the PS group and 112.6 minutes for the PSS. At 24 months all clinical and radiographic scores were p < 0.05 for the PS group. During follow-up 4 patients (2 in each group) died of causes not related to surgery. Conclusions. The use of the metal plate as opposed to cortical allogenic splint should be taken into consideration as a noteworthy point for periprosthetic femoral fractures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5136380
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51363802016-12-18 The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment Carta, Serafino Fortina, Mattia Riva, Alberto Meccariello, Luigi Manzi, Enrico Di Giovanni, Antonio Ferrata, Paolo Adv Med Research Article Introduction. The periprosthetic fracture of the femur is, in order of frequency, the fourth leading cause (5.9%) of surgical revision. Our study aims to demonstrate how the grafting of bone splint betters the outcomes. Materials. We treated 15 periprosthetic femoral fractures divided into two groups: PS composed of 8 patients treated with plates and splints and PSS involving 7 patients treated only with plates. The evaluation criteria for the two groups during the clinical and radiological follow-up were the quality of life measured by the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Modified Cincinnati Rating System Questionnaire (MCRSQ), bone healing measured by the Radiographic Union Score (RUS), postoperative complications, and mortality. The evaluation endpoint was set at 24 months for both groups (p < 0.05). Results. The surgery lasted an average of 124.5 minutes for the PS group and 112.6 minutes for the PSS. At 24 months all clinical and radiographic scores were p < 0.05 for the PS group. During follow-up 4 patients (2 in each group) died of causes not related to surgery. Conclusions. The use of the metal plate as opposed to cortical allogenic splint should be taken into consideration as a noteworthy point for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5136380/ /pubmed/27990462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2918735 Text en Copyright © 2016 Serafino Carta et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Carta, Serafino
Fortina, Mattia
Riva, Alberto
Meccariello, Luigi
Manzi, Enrico
Di Giovanni, Antonio
Ferrata, Paolo
The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment
title The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment
title_full The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment
title_fullStr The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment
title_full_unstemmed The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment
title_short The Biological Metallic versus Metallic Solution in Treating Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures: Outcome Assessment
title_sort biological metallic versus metallic solution in treating periprosthetic femoral fractures: outcome assessment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5136380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27990462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2918735
work_keys_str_mv AT cartaserafino thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT fortinamattia thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT rivaalberto thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT meccarielloluigi thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT manzienrico thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT digiovanniantonio thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT ferratapaolo thebiologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT cartaserafino biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT fortinamattia biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT rivaalberto biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT meccarielloluigi biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT manzienrico biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT digiovanniantonio biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment
AT ferratapaolo biologicalmetallicversusmetallicsolutionintreatingperiprostheticfemoralfracturesoutcomeassessment