Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture

被引:0
|
作者
Lara-Taranchenko, Yuri [1 ]
Nomdedeu Jr, Josep F. [1 ]
Martinez, Andres Aliaga [1 ]
Mimendia, Inaki [1 ]
Barro, Victor M. [1 ]
Collado, Diego [1 ]
Guerra-Farfan, Ernesto [1 ]
Hernandez, Alejandro [1 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Univ Vall dHebron, Pg Vall dHebron 119-129, Barcelona 08035, Spain
关键词
Hip arthroplasty; Hip revision; Periprosthetic fracture; Cemented stem; Cementless stem; FEMORAL FRACTURES;
D O I
10.1007/s00590-024-03961-3
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose According to Vancouver classification, B2 type fractures are most often treated with removal of the loose stem and implantation of a long stem that bypasses the fracture site. However, there is a controversy about the stem fixation that should be used: cemented or cementless. Hence, this study aims to compare cemented and cementless stems in prosthetic revision due to Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fracture. Methods A retrospective study was done including all the patients treated with stem exchange due to VB2 periprosthetic hip fracture in a tertiary hospital between 2015 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to the stem fixation used: cemented or cementless. Functional outcomes, hospital stay, surgical time, complication rate, and mortality were compared between the two groups of patients. Results Of the 30 included patients, 13 (43.4%) were treated with cementless stems and 17 (56.7%) with cemented stems. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, anesthesia risk scale (ASA) or functional capacity prior to the intervention. Patients treated with cementless stems had a higher complication and reintervention rate than those treated with cemented stems: 62 and 45% versus 34 and 6% (p = 0.035; p = 0.010), respectively. Furthermore, in the group of cementless stems a higher proportion of non-union was found (53.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.037). Also, the hospital stay (33 vs. 24 days; p = 0.037) and the time to full weight-bearing (21 days vs. 9 days; p < 0.001) were longer in the cementless stem group. Conclusion Cemented fixation in stem revision due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture could be an optimal option with faster recovery which could decrease the rate of complications and reintervention, without compromising the fracture healing and patient mortality. Thus, this option can be considered when an anatomical reduction can be obtained, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities in which a less aggressive surgical option should be considered.
引用
收藏
页码:2573 / 2580
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Immediate weightbearing is safe after revision total hip arthroplasty for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic femur fractures
    Gopinath, Rohan
    Oster, Brittany A.
    Mixa, Patrick J.
    Costales, Timothy G.
    Johnson, Aaron J.
    Manson, Theodore T.
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2024, 55 (03):
  • [22] Treatment of periprosthetic fracture Vancouver B2-B3 in cementless total hip arthroplasty: are we able to predict stem mobilization?
    Schiavi, Paolo
    Vaienti, Enrico
    Ferrari, Andrea
    Ceccarelli, Francesco
    Maniscalco, Pietro
    Pogliacomi, Francesco
    MINERVA ORTHOPEDICS, 2024, 75 (03): : 183 - 190
  • [23] Similar revision rate after cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 1,879 revision hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
    Van Dooren, Bart
    Peters, Rinne M.
    Jutte, Paul C.
    Stevens, Martin
    Schreurs, B. Willem
    Zijlstra, Wierd P.
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2023, 94 : 260 - 265
  • [24] A New Technique in Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Vancouver B Periprosthetic Fractures
    Khan, Riaz J. K.
    McGonagle, Lorcan
    Wallis, Andrew R.
    Sidhu, Amanpreet S.
    Fick, Daniel P.
    Nivbrant, Bo
    TECHNIQUES IN ORTHOPAEDICS, 2015, 30 (01) : 49 - 53
  • [25] Uncemented or cemented revision stems? Analysis of 2,296 first-time hip revision arthroplasties performed due to aseptic loosening, reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register
    Tyson, Yosef
    Rolfson, Ola
    Karrholm, Johan
    Hailer, Nils P.
    Mohaddes, Maziar
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2019, 90 (05) : 421 - 426
  • [26] Hip revision arthroplasty for failed osteosynthesis in periprosthetic Vancouver type B1 fractures using a cementless, modular, tapered revision stem
    Fink, B.
    Oremek, D.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2017, 99B (04): : 11 - 16
  • [27] Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review
    Stoffel, Karl
    Blauth, Michael
    Joeris, Alexander
    Blumenthal, Andrea
    Rometsch, Elke
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2020, 140 (10) : 1381 - 1394
  • [28] Fracture fixation versus revision arthroplasty in Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures: a systematic review
    Karl Stoffel
    Michael Blauth
    Alexander Joeris
    Andrea Blumenthal
    Elke Rometsch
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2020, 140 : 1381 - 1394
  • [29] Hip Revision Arthroplasty of Periprosthetic Fractures Vancouver B2 and B3 with a Modular Revision Stem: Short-Term Results and Review of Literature
    Schreiner, Anna Janine
    Steidle, Christoph
    Schmidutz, Florian
    Gonser, Christoph
    Hemmann, Philipp
    Stoeckle, Ulrich
    Ochs, Gunnar
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND UNFALLCHIRURGIE, 2022, 160 (01): : 40 - 48
  • [30] Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in the Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures
    Munro, Jacob T.
    Garbuz, Donald S.
    Masri, Bassam A.
    Duncan, Clive P.
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2014, 472 (02) : 590 - 598