Saidi Kevan, Ben-Lulu Oren, Tsuji Matthew, Safir Oleg, Gross Allan E, Backstein David
Health Sciences North Orthopaedic Oncology and Adult Reconstruction Program, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):110-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.012. Epub 2013 May 13.
The following study is a review of 3 different treatment methods for treating comminuted distal periprosthetic femur fractures in 23 patients over the age of 70 (average age 80, range 70-90). Reconstruction techniques included 7 allograft prosthesis composite (APC), 9 revision systems (RSA), and 7 distal femur endoprosthesis (DFR). Operative time and blood loss were found to be significantly less in RSA and DFR patients compared to the APC patients. Hospital stay was shortest for the DFR patients. No significant difference was found in the 6-week or 6-month Knee Society Scores. Our preliminary results demonstrate that in experienced hands, distal femur endoprosthesis should be considered in patients with advanced age and poor bone quality who require early mobilization.
以下研究是对23名70岁以上（平均年龄80岁，范围70 - 90岁）的股骨假体周围粉碎性远端骨折患者采用3种不同治疗方法的回顾。重建技术包括7例同种异体骨假体复合物（APC）、9例翻修系统（RSA）和7例股骨远端内置假体（DFR）。结果发现，与APC患者相比，RSA和DFR患者的手术时间和失血量明显更少。DFR患者的住院时间最短。6周或6个月的膝关节协会评分未发现显著差异。我们的初步结果表明，在经验丰富的医生手中，对于年龄较大且骨质较差、需要早期活动的患者，应考虑使用股骨远端内置假体。
