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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |