Sarvilinna Roope, Huhtala Heini S A, Sovelius Roope T, Halonen Pekka J, Nevalainen Juha K, Pajamäki K Jorma K
Medical School, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Feb;75(1):16-20. doi: 10.1080/00016470410001708030.
We compared retrospectively 31 patients with a periprosthetic fracture to 31 patients in a control group. The Finnish Arthroplasty Register was used to count all periprosthetic fractures treated by revision arthroplasty in Finland and in Tampere University Hospital district during the years 1990-1999. We used the date of the previous operation to find the control group patients operated on at the same time in the same hospital district. No other selection or matching criteria were used. The type of prosthesis, complications, age, BMI, cementation and primary diagnosis were compared. We found that patients who had a fracture as the primary diagnosis ran a 4.4 (95%CI = 1.4-14) times higher risk of periprosthetic fracture than those operated on for other reasons.
我们回顾性地比较了31例假体周围骨折患者与31例对照组患者。利用芬兰关节置换登记处的数据，统计了1990年至1999年间芬兰及坦佩雷大学医院区接受翻修关节置换术治疗的所有假体周围骨折病例。我们根据上一次手术日期，找出在同一医院区同期接受手术的对照组患者。未采用其他选择或匹配标准。比较了假体类型、并发症、年龄、体重指数、骨水泥固定情况及初次诊断。我们发现，以骨折作为初次诊断的患者发生假体周围骨折的风险比因其他原因接受手术的患者高4.4倍（95%可信区间=1.4-14）。
