Cargando…

Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate

INTRODUCTION: The Vancouver algorithm recommends revision arthroplasty (RA) for Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using locking compression plates (LCP) may be a valid and less invasive alternative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between Janua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baum, C., Leimbacher, M., Kriechling, P., Platz, A., Cadosch, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31579528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2151459319876859
_version_ 1783453748331282432
author Baum, C.
Leimbacher, M.
Kriechling, P.
Platz, A.
Cadosch, D.
author_facet Baum, C.
Leimbacher, M.
Kriechling, P.
Platz, A.
Cadosch, D.
author_sort Baum, C.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The Vancouver algorithm recommends revision arthroplasty (RA) for Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using locking compression plates (LCP) may be a valid and less invasive alternative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and March 2017, we retrospectively recruited all patients treated with either ORIF with LCP or RA for VTB2 fractures in our clinic. All of the following were reviewed: the length of hospital stay, the operating time, the need for blood transfusions during and/or after surgery, implant-related and patient-related complications, need for revision surgery, and the radiological outcome. Additionally, the functional outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were recruited. Thirty-five (59.3%) patients underwent RA, while 24 (40.7%) patients received ORIF with LCP. The median surgical time was 137.50 minutes in the LCP group compared to 160.00 minutes in the RA group (P = .051). Three (12.5%) patients in the LCP group and 10 (28.6%) patients in the RA group experienced an implant-associated complication (P = .131). Patient-related complications occurred in 3 (12.5%) patients in the LCP group versus 6 (17.1%) patients in the RA group (P = .628). The mean preoperative Parker mobility score was 9 points in both groups and decreased in both groups to a mean of 5 points in the LCP and 7 points in the RA group. DISCUSSION: Open reduction and internal fixation with LCP seems to be a less invasive procedure for VTB2 fractures in comparison to RA. It is a bone-sparing procedure that can be advantageous for further revision operations. Moreover, some fractures can only be anatomically reduced by ORIF with LCP, whereas for proximal fractures with a radiologically unambiguously loosened stem RA might be advantageous. CONCLUSION: In line with previously published studies, our data suggest that ORIF using LCP is a valid treatment option for VTB2 fractures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6759715
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67597152019-10-02 Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate Baum, C. Leimbacher, M. Kriechling, P. Platz, A. Cadosch, D. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Original Article INTRODUCTION: The Vancouver algorithm recommends revision arthroplasty (RA) for Vancouver type B2 (VTB2) fractures. However, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using locking compression plates (LCP) may be a valid and less invasive alternative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and March 2017, we retrospectively recruited all patients treated with either ORIF with LCP or RA for VTB2 fractures in our clinic. All of the following were reviewed: the length of hospital stay, the operating time, the need for blood transfusions during and/or after surgery, implant-related and patient-related complications, need for revision surgery, and the radiological outcome. Additionally, the functional outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were recruited. Thirty-five (59.3%) patients underwent RA, while 24 (40.7%) patients received ORIF with LCP. The median surgical time was 137.50 minutes in the LCP group compared to 160.00 minutes in the RA group (P = .051). Three (12.5%) patients in the LCP group and 10 (28.6%) patients in the RA group experienced an implant-associated complication (P = .131). Patient-related complications occurred in 3 (12.5%) patients in the LCP group versus 6 (17.1%) patients in the RA group (P = .628). The mean preoperative Parker mobility score was 9 points in both groups and decreased in both groups to a mean of 5 points in the LCP and 7 points in the RA group. DISCUSSION: Open reduction and internal fixation with LCP seems to be a less invasive procedure for VTB2 fractures in comparison to RA. It is a bone-sparing procedure that can be advantageous for further revision operations. Moreover, some fractures can only be anatomically reduced by ORIF with LCP, whereas for proximal fractures with a radiologically unambiguously loosened stem RA might be advantageous. CONCLUSION: In line with previously published studies, our data suggest that ORIF using LCP is a valid treatment option for VTB2 fractures. SAGE Publications 2019-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6759715/ /pubmed/31579528 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2151459319876859 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
Baum, C.
Leimbacher, M.
Kriechling, P.
Platz, A.
Cadosch, D.
Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate
title Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate
title_full Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate
title_fullStr Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate
title_short Treatment of Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures Vancouver Type B2: Revision Arthroplasty Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation With Locking Compression Plate
title_sort treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures vancouver type b2: revision arthroplasty versus open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plate
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31579528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2151459319876859
work_keys_str_mv AT baumc treatmentofperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvertypeb2revisionarthroplastyversusopenreductionandinternalfixationwithlockingcompressionplate
AT leimbacherm treatmentofperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvertypeb2revisionarthroplastyversusopenreductionandinternalfixationwithlockingcompressionplate
AT kriechlingp treatmentofperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvertypeb2revisionarthroplastyversusopenreductionandinternalfixationwithlockingcompressionplate
AT platza treatmentofperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvertypeb2revisionarthroplastyversusopenreductionandinternalfixationwithlockingcompressionplate
AT cadoschd treatmentofperiprostheticfemoralfracturesvancouvertypeb2revisionarthroplastyversusopenreductionandinternalfixationwithlockingcompressionplate