Wick M, Müller E J, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Hopf F, Muhr G
Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Kliniken Bergmannsheil, Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Unfallchirurg. 2004 Mar;107(3):181-8. doi: 10.1007/s00113-003-0723-5.
Retrograde intramedullary locking nailing as well as the LIS system are propagated as minimally invasive treatment options for distal femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty. In a retrospective study, we reviewed the clinical results after operative treatment of 18 periprosthetic supracondylar femoral fractures. The fracture was stabilized with the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) in nine patients (average age: 80.3 years) and with a retrograde intramedullary locking nail in the remaining nine patients (average age: 76.8 years). The mean follow-up was 18.2 months (6-35 months). We did not find significant differences concerning the operation time (nailing 99.8 min vs 102.3 min with the LISS) or the length of stay in the hospital (nailing 10.6 days vs 12.7 days with the LISS). In one patient of the nailing group we found a valgus malalignment of 18 degrees. Seven patients in each group were satisfied with the clinical results. In one patient of the LISS group a revision due to an infection was necessary. In one patient of the nailing group a reosteosynthesis had to be performed. To sum up, both systems are useful tools in the treatment of dislocated periprosthetic fractures and both systems are not without any problems. However, under special consideration of the complications we found in our study, the LISS seems to be a better alternative in osteoporotic bone with a small distal fragment. The choice of the optimal implant should therefore depend on the type of fracture and knee arthroplasty, the type of bone, and the experience of the surgeon.
逆行髓内锁定接骨板以及LIS系统被宣传为全膝关节置换术后股骨远端骨折的微创治疗选择。在一项回顾性研究中,我们回顾了18例人工关节周围股骨髁上骨折手术治疗后的临床结果。9例患者(平均年龄:80.3岁)采用微创稳定系统(LISS)固定骨折,其余9例患者(平均年龄:76.8岁)采用逆行髓内锁定接骨板固定。平均随访时间为18.2个月(6 - 35个月)。我们未发现手术时间(髓内钉固定99.8分钟,LISS固定102.3分钟)或住院时间(髓内钉固定10.6天,LISS固定12.7天)有显著差异。在髓内钉固定组的1例患者中,我们发现有18度的外翻畸形。每组各有7例患者对临床结果满意。LISS组有1例患者因感染需要翻修。髓内钉固定组有1例患者必须进行再次骨固定术。总之,两种系统都是治疗人工关节周围骨折脱位的有用工具,但两种系统都并非没有问题。然而,特别考虑到我们研究中发现的并发症,对于骨质疏松且远端骨折块较小的情况,LISS似乎是更好的选择。因此,最佳植入物的选择应取决于骨折类型、膝关节置换类型、骨质类型以及外科医生的经验。