Cargando…
Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study
BACKGROUND: Hip-preserving revision in patients with failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fracture is still a major challenge. Whether the medial support reconstruction could benefit the patients and improve the success rate of hip-preserving revision is still controversial. Hence, the purpose o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9707300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36447239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-06004-2 |
_version_ | 1784840686748565504 |
---|---|
author | Qi, Lin Zhang, Wei Chang, Zuhao Zuo, Zhaoxia Li, Jiaqi Li, Jiantao Chen, Hua Tang, Peifu |
author_facet | Qi, Lin Zhang, Wei Chang, Zuhao Zuo, Zhaoxia Li, Jiaqi Li, Jiantao Chen, Hua Tang, Peifu |
author_sort | Qi, Lin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Hip-preserving revision in patients with failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fracture is still a major challenge. Whether the medial support reconstruction could benefit the patients and improve the success rate of hip-preserving revision is still controversial. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance and prognosis of medial support reconstruction during the hip-preserving revision of failed femoral trochanteric fracture treatment. METHODS: Patients with failed femoral trochanteric fractures treatments addressed by hip-preserving revision at our hospital from January 2014 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. 31 patients were included and divided into a medial support group (n = 16) and a non-medial support group (n = 15). The fracture healing rate was the primary measurement. In addition, the differences in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), quality of life, surgical trauma, and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: The fracture healing rate (100%, 16/16 vs. 66.67%, 10/15), the OHS (42.06 ± 4.12 vs. 30.93 ± 11.56, M ± SD), and the mental component score of the 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) (54.48 ± 5.38 vs. 47.90 ± 3.47, M ± SD), were significantly better and the incidence of complications [0(0/16) vs. 40%(6/15)] was significantly lower in the medial support group than the non-medial support group (p < 0.05). No significant differences in the physical component score of the SF-12, surgical trauma and reduction in collodiaphyseal angle of affected femur were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The reconstruction of medial support seems important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures. Due to the medial augmentation and improvement of the mechanical stability for proximal femur, the patients might benefit from fracture healing prognosis and functional. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9707300 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97073002022-11-30 Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study Qi, Lin Zhang, Wei Chang, Zuhao Zuo, Zhaoxia Li, Jiaqi Li, Jiantao Chen, Hua Tang, Peifu BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: Hip-preserving revision in patients with failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fracture is still a major challenge. Whether the medial support reconstruction could benefit the patients and improve the success rate of hip-preserving revision is still controversial. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance and prognosis of medial support reconstruction during the hip-preserving revision of failed femoral trochanteric fracture treatment. METHODS: Patients with failed femoral trochanteric fractures treatments addressed by hip-preserving revision at our hospital from January 2014 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. 31 patients were included and divided into a medial support group (n = 16) and a non-medial support group (n = 15). The fracture healing rate was the primary measurement. In addition, the differences in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), quality of life, surgical trauma, and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: The fracture healing rate (100%, 16/16 vs. 66.67%, 10/15), the OHS (42.06 ± 4.12 vs. 30.93 ± 11.56, M ± SD), and the mental component score of the 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) (54.48 ± 5.38 vs. 47.90 ± 3.47, M ± SD), were significantly better and the incidence of complications [0(0/16) vs. 40%(6/15)] was significantly lower in the medial support group than the non-medial support group (p < 0.05). No significant differences in the physical component score of the SF-12, surgical trauma and reduction in collodiaphyseal angle of affected femur were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The reconstruction of medial support seems important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures. Due to the medial augmentation and improvement of the mechanical stability for proximal femur, the patients might benefit from fracture healing prognosis and functional. BioMed Central 2022-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9707300/ /pubmed/36447239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-06004-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Qi, Lin Zhang, Wei Chang, Zuhao Zuo, Zhaoxia Li, Jiaqi Li, Jiantao Chen, Hua Tang, Peifu Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
title | Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
title_full | Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
title_fullStr | Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
title_full_unstemmed | Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
title_short | Is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
title_sort | is the reconstruction of medial support important for revision following failed treatment of femoral trochanteric fractures? a retrospective comparative study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9707300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36447239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-06004-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT qilin isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT zhangwei isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT changzuhao isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT zuozhaoxia isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT lijiaqi isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT lijiantao isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT chenhua isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy AT tangpeifu isthereconstructionofmedialsupportimportantforrevisionfollowingfailedtreatmentoffemoraltrochantericfracturesaretrospectivecomparativestudy |