Cargando…

A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty

Hip hemiarthroplasty is considered the treatment of choice for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly less active patients. One important complication of this procedure is an intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (IPF), which may lead to poor functional outcome and may increase morbidity...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mazzawi, Elias, Ghrayeb, Nabil, Khury, Farouk, Norman, Doron, Keren, Yaniv
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35428861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10384-9
_version_ 1784687884582780928
author Mazzawi, Elias
Ghrayeb, Nabil
Khury, Farouk
Norman, Doron
Keren, Yaniv
author_facet Mazzawi, Elias
Ghrayeb, Nabil
Khury, Farouk
Norman, Doron
Keren, Yaniv
author_sort Mazzawi, Elias
collection PubMed
description Hip hemiarthroplasty is considered the treatment of choice for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly less active patients. One important complication of this procedure is an intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (IPF), which may lead to poor functional outcome and may increase morbidity and mortality. Our primary aim in this study is to compare between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding IPFs. Our secondary aim is to assess patient and surgical technique related risk factors for the development of this complication. Inclusion criteria included patients older than 65 years of age who had a displaced femoral neck fracture and were operated for hip hemiarthroplasty between the years 2014–2018. Patient-specific data was collected retrospectively including age, gender, comorbidities, pre-injury ambulatory status, duration of surgery, surgical approach, use of Austin-Moore or Corail prosthesis, surgeon’s experience and type of anesthesia applied. In addition, radiographs were reviewed for measurement of calcar to canal ratio (CDR) and classification of Dorr canal type. 257 patients with an average age of 83.7 years were enrolled in the study. 118 patients (46%) were treated with an Austin-Moore prosthesis, while 139 (54%) were treated with a Corail prosthesis. A total of 22 patients (8.6%) had intraoperative fractures. Fracture prevalence was significantly higher in the Corail group compared with the Austin-Moore group (12.2% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.025). The majority of patients had a Dorr A type femoral canal, while the rest had Dorr B type canal (70% vs. 30%). There was no difference in fracture prevalence between Dorr A and B canal type patients. We didn’t find any significant risk factor for developing an IPF, neither patient wise (age, gender, and comorbidities) nor surgical technique related (surgical approach, type of anesthesia, and surgeon’s experience). Intraoperative periprosthetic fracture prevalence was significantly higher in the Corail patient group compared with the Austin-Moore group. This may be an important advantage of the Austin-Moore prosthesis over the Corail prosthesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9012879
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90128792022-04-18 A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty Mazzawi, Elias Ghrayeb, Nabil Khury, Farouk Norman, Doron Keren, Yaniv Sci Rep Article Hip hemiarthroplasty is considered the treatment of choice for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly less active patients. One important complication of this procedure is an intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (IPF), which may lead to poor functional outcome and may increase morbidity and mortality. Our primary aim in this study is to compare between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding IPFs. Our secondary aim is to assess patient and surgical technique related risk factors for the development of this complication. Inclusion criteria included patients older than 65 years of age who had a displaced femoral neck fracture and were operated for hip hemiarthroplasty between the years 2014–2018. Patient-specific data was collected retrospectively including age, gender, comorbidities, pre-injury ambulatory status, duration of surgery, surgical approach, use of Austin-Moore or Corail prosthesis, surgeon’s experience and type of anesthesia applied. In addition, radiographs were reviewed for measurement of calcar to canal ratio (CDR) and classification of Dorr canal type. 257 patients with an average age of 83.7 years were enrolled in the study. 118 patients (46%) were treated with an Austin-Moore prosthesis, while 139 (54%) were treated with a Corail prosthesis. A total of 22 patients (8.6%) had intraoperative fractures. Fracture prevalence was significantly higher in the Corail group compared with the Austin-Moore group (12.2% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.025). The majority of patients had a Dorr A type femoral canal, while the rest had Dorr B type canal (70% vs. 30%). There was no difference in fracture prevalence between Dorr A and B canal type patients. We didn’t find any significant risk factor for developing an IPF, neither patient wise (age, gender, and comorbidities) nor surgical technique related (surgical approach, type of anesthesia, and surgeon’s experience). Intraoperative periprosthetic fracture prevalence was significantly higher in the Corail patient group compared with the Austin-Moore group. This may be an important advantage of the Austin-Moore prosthesis over the Corail prosthesis. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9012879/ /pubmed/35428861 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10384-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Mazzawi, Elias
Ghrayeb, Nabil
Khury, Farouk
Norman, Doron
Keren, Yaniv
A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
title A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
title_full A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
title_fullStr A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
title_short A comparison between Austin-Moore and Corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
title_sort comparison between austin-moore and corail prosthesis regarding intraoperative periprosthetic femur fractures in hip hemiarthroplasty
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35428861
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10384-9
work_keys_str_mv AT mazzawielias acomparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT ghrayebnabil acomparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT khuryfarouk acomparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT normandoron acomparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT kerenyaniv acomparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT mazzawielias comparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT ghrayebnabil comparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT khuryfarouk comparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT normandoron comparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty
AT kerenyaniv comparisonbetweenaustinmooreandcorailprosthesisregardingintraoperativeperiprostheticfemurfracturesinhiphemiarthroplasty