Cargando…
Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem
BACKGROUND: Monoblock taper fluted stems have been reliably used to treat proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures (PFF) and femoral aseptic loosening (AL). Although proximal femoral remodeling has been observed around the Wagner Self-Locking (SL) stem, the exact characteristics of this process are...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33596872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04062-6 |
_version_ | 1783652574696570880 |
---|---|
author | Friebert, Gábor Gombár, Csaba Bozó, András Polyák, Ilona Brzózka, Ádám Sisák, Krisztián |
author_facet | Friebert, Gábor Gombár, Csaba Bozó, András Polyák, Ilona Brzózka, Ádám Sisák, Krisztián |
author_sort | Friebert, Gábor |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Monoblock taper fluted stems have been reliably used to treat proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures (PFF) and femoral aseptic loosening (AL). Although proximal femoral remodeling has been observed around the Wagner Self-Locking (SL) stem, the exact characteristics of this process are yet to be established. Our aim was to compare the remodeling that takes place after femoral revisions for PFF and AL. METHODS: Consecutive patients between January 2015 and December 2017 undergoing femoral revision using the Wagner SL stem for PFF or AL without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) or bone grafting were selected from our database. Radiological follow-up was performed using plain antero-posterior hip radiographs taken postoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months and at 24 months. The Global Radiological Score (GRxS) was utilized by four blinded observers. Intra and interobserver variability was calculated. Secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Hip Score and the Visual Analog Scale for pain. RESULTS: We identified 20 patients from our database, 10 PFF and 10 AL cases. The severity of AL was Paprosky 2 in 2 cases, Paprosky 3A in 2 cases and Paprosky 3B in 6. PFF were classified as Vancouver B2 in 7 cases and Vancouver B3 in 3 cases. Patients undergoing femoral revision for PFF regained 89% (GRxS: 17.7/20) of their bone stock by 6 months, whilst patients with AL, required almost 2 years to achieve similar reconstitution of proximal femoral bony architecture 86% (GRxS: 17.1/20). Inter-observer reproducibility for numerical GRxS values showed a “good” correlation with 0.68, whilst the intra-observer agreement was “very good” with 0.89. Except immediate after the revision, we found a significant difference between the GRxS results of the two groups at each timepoint with pair-wise comparisons. Functional results were similar in the two groups. We were not able to show a correlation between GRxS and functional results. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal femoral bone stock reconstitutes much quicker around PFF, than in the cases of AL, where revision is performed without an ETO. The accuracy of GRxS measurements on plain radiographs showed good reproducibility, making it suitable for everyday use in a revision arthroplasty practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04062-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7890820 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78908202021-02-22 Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem Friebert, Gábor Gombár, Csaba Bozó, András Polyák, Ilona Brzózka, Ádám Sisák, Krisztián BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Monoblock taper fluted stems have been reliably used to treat proximal femoral periprosthetic fractures (PFF) and femoral aseptic loosening (AL). Although proximal femoral remodeling has been observed around the Wagner Self-Locking (SL) stem, the exact characteristics of this process are yet to be established. Our aim was to compare the remodeling that takes place after femoral revisions for PFF and AL. METHODS: Consecutive patients between January 2015 and December 2017 undergoing femoral revision using the Wagner SL stem for PFF or AL without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO) or bone grafting were selected from our database. Radiological follow-up was performed using plain antero-posterior hip radiographs taken postoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months and at 24 months. The Global Radiological Score (GRxS) was utilized by four blinded observers. Intra and interobserver variability was calculated. Secondary outcome measures included the Oxford Hip Score and the Visual Analog Scale for pain. RESULTS: We identified 20 patients from our database, 10 PFF and 10 AL cases. The severity of AL was Paprosky 2 in 2 cases, Paprosky 3A in 2 cases and Paprosky 3B in 6. PFF were classified as Vancouver B2 in 7 cases and Vancouver B3 in 3 cases. Patients undergoing femoral revision for PFF regained 89% (GRxS: 17.7/20) of their bone stock by 6 months, whilst patients with AL, required almost 2 years to achieve similar reconstitution of proximal femoral bony architecture 86% (GRxS: 17.1/20). Inter-observer reproducibility for numerical GRxS values showed a “good” correlation with 0.68, whilst the intra-observer agreement was “very good” with 0.89. Except immediate after the revision, we found a significant difference between the GRxS results of the two groups at each timepoint with pair-wise comparisons. Functional results were similar in the two groups. We were not able to show a correlation between GRxS and functional results. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal femoral bone stock reconstitutes much quicker around PFF, than in the cases of AL, where revision is performed without an ETO. The accuracy of GRxS measurements on plain radiographs showed good reproducibility, making it suitable for everyday use in a revision arthroplasty practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04062-6. BioMed Central 2021-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7890820/ /pubmed/33596872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04062-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Friebert, Gábor Gombár, Csaba Bozó, András Polyák, Ilona Brzózka, Ádám Sisák, Krisztián Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem |
title | Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem |
title_full | Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem |
title_fullStr | Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem |
title_short | Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem |
title_sort | differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the wagner sl stem |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7890820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33596872 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04062-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT friebertgabor differencesbetweenproximalboneremodelinginfemoralrevisionsforasepticlooseningandperiprostheticfracturesusingthewagnerslstem AT gombarcsaba differencesbetweenproximalboneremodelinginfemoralrevisionsforasepticlooseningandperiprostheticfracturesusingthewagnerslstem AT bozoandras differencesbetweenproximalboneremodelinginfemoralrevisionsforasepticlooseningandperiprostheticfracturesusingthewagnerslstem AT polyakilona differencesbetweenproximalboneremodelinginfemoralrevisionsforasepticlooseningandperiprostheticfracturesusingthewagnerslstem AT brzozkaadam differencesbetweenproximalboneremodelinginfemoralrevisionsforasepticlooseningandperiprostheticfracturesusingthewagnerslstem AT sisakkrisztian differencesbetweenproximalboneremodelinginfemoralrevisionsforasepticlooseningandperiprostheticfracturesusingthewagnerslstem |