Ehlinger M, Delaunay C, Karoubi M, Bonnomet F, Ramdane N, Hamadouche M
Service de chirurgie orthopédique et de traumatologie, hôpital de Hautepierre, 1, avenue Molière, 67098 Strasbourg cedex, France.
Clinique de l'Yvette, 67-69, route de Corbeil, 91160 Longjumeau, France.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Oct;100(6):657-62. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.030. Epub 2014 Aug 27.
Revision total hip arthroplasty (reTHA) for peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) is increasingly performed but still ranks fourth among reasons for reTHA in registries. In France, no specific registry is available and the frequency of PPF among reasons for THA revision is therefore unknown. Here, our objectives were to determine the relative frequency of PPF as a reason for reTHA, to identify patient-related and primary-THA-related factors associated with reTHA for PPF, to describe reTHA modalities for PPF, and to determine the morbidity and mortality associated with reTHA for PPF.
PPF is the second most common reason for reTHA, after loosening.
Consecutive reTHA procedures performed in 30 French centres over a 2-year period were collected prospectively. Repeat revisions and revisions of hemi-arthroplasties were excluded. The epidemiological, clinical, and surgical data needed to answer the questions of the study were collected.
PPF was the second leading reason for reTHA (249/2107, 11.8%). Vancouver type B2 fractures were the most common (n=127 [51.5%]). Compared to patients who underwent reTHA for reasons other than PPF, those with reTHA for PPF were older at primary THA (67.9 years versus 57.7 years) and more often had intra-operative complications (16.9% versus 11.6%); furthermore, the primary THA was more often cementless (62.7% versus 42.7%) with a dual-mobility cup (20.6% versus 11.1%). At reTHA, the patients with PPF were older (77.6 years versus 69.2 years), had worst medical condition (mean ASA score, 2.4 versus 2.1) and less physically active (mean Devane score, 2.1 versus 2.4). The patients with reTHA for PPF had a shorter time to revision (9.8 years versus 11.4 years), a longer operative time (144 minutes versus 128 minutes), and more frequent use of the posterior approach (77% versus 67%) with a cementless dual-mobility cup (78% versus 60%) and a cementless revision femoral stem (72% versus 50%). Morbidity and mortality rates were high (5.9% operative complication rate and 12% of surgical complications with 4.8% mortality within the first 3 months) however, these results were similar to those in the rest of the cohort.
PPF is the second most common reason for reTHA, a result that is at variance with data in national registries.
Level IV, prospective observational cohort study.
因假体周围骨折(PPF)而行的翻修全髋关节置换术(reTHA)日益增多,但在翻修全髋关节置换术的原因中仍位列第四。在法国,尚无专门的登记系统,因此PPF在髋关节置换术翻修原因中的发生率尚不清楚。在此,我们的目标是确定PPF作为reTHA原因的相对频率,识别与因PPF而行reTHA相关的患者相关因素和初次全髋关节置换术相关因素,描述因PPF而行reTHA的手术方式,并确定因PPF而行reTHA相关的发病率和死亡率。
PPF是reTHA的第二大常见原因,仅次于假体松动。
前瞻性收集法国30个中心在2年期间连续进行的reTHA手术。排除再次翻修和半髋关节置换术的翻修。收集回答本研究问题所需的流行病学、临床和手术数据。
PPF是reTHA的第二大主要原因(249/2107,11.8%)。温哥华B2型骨折最为常见(n = 127 [51.5%])。与因PPF以外原因而行reTHA的患者相比,因PPF而行reTHA的患者初次全髋关节置换术时年龄更大(67.9岁对57.7岁),术中并发症更常见(16.9%对11.6%);此外,初次全髋关节置换术更常采用非骨水泥型(62.7%对42.7%),且使用双动髋臼杯(20.6%对11.1%)。在reTHA时,因PPF而行手术的患者年龄更大(77.6岁对69.2岁),身体状况更差(平均美国麻醉医师协会[ASA]评分,2.4对2.1),身体活动较少(平均德瓦恩[Devane]评分,2.1对2.4)。因PPF而行reTHA的患者翻修时间更短(9.8年对|1.4年),手术时间更长(144分钟对128分钟),更频繁采用后入路(77%对67%),使用非骨水泥双动髋臼杯(78%对60%)和非骨水泥翻修股骨柄(72%对50%)。发病率和死亡率较高(手术并发症发生率5.9%,手术相关并发症12%,前3个月内死亡率4.8%),然而,这些结果与队列其他患者的结果相似。
PPF是reTHA的第二大常见原因,这一结果与国家登记系统中的数据不一致水平证据:IV级,前瞻性观察队列研究。