Stoffel Karl, Sommer Christoph, Kalampoki Vasiliki, Blumenthal Andrea, Joeris Alexander
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University of Basel and Kantonsspital Baselland, 4101, Bruderholz, Switzerland.
Kantonsspital Graubünden, Loestrasse 170, 7000, Chur, Switzerland.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Apr;136(4):553-61. doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2407-y. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
A systematic literature review on periprosthetic/interprosthetic fracture fixation after hip arthroplasties was performed to summarize available clinical data. Operation techniques and implants used were evaluated as possible risk factors for outcomes.
MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched. Articles describing patients with postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures sustained around a hip arthroplasty and with interprosthetic fractures treated with plates, nails, screws and/or cerclage were included. Considered articles were from 2000 or newer. Eligible abstracts were screened by two independent persons and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Absolute numbers of complications and/or reoperation events along with their corresponding rates were calculated according to operation technique and type of implant. Relative risks of having a complication and/or a reoperation according to the operation technique and the type of implant used were estimated.
Available data from 49 prospective and retrospective studies were analyzed. Of 1574 fractures, 81.7 % were treated with plating. For 83.0 % of all fractures, an open approach was applied. The overall complication rate was 14.3 %. Fixation failure and nonunion were most often reported (fixation failure: 4.4 %; nonunion: 3.9 %). Nonunion and refracture occurred more often after open approaches than after minimal invasive osteosynthesis (nonunion: 4.5 vs. 0.0 %, p = 0.001; refracture: 3.8 vs. 0.6 %. p = 0.024). The relative risk for nonunion was 11.9 (95 % CI 4.5-31.5) times higher (p < 0.0001) for non-locking plates (13.0 %) than for locking plates (1.1 %).
The clinical evidence of published studies dealing with periprosthetic/interprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty is generally low. This literature search suggested higher rates of nonunion and refracture after an open approach and a higher risk of nonunion for non-locking plates compared to locking plates. Based on the available clinical evidence, no treatment recommendations can be given.
对髋关节置换术后假体周围/假体间骨折固定进行了系统的文献综述,以总结现有的临床数据。评估了所使用的手术技术和植入物作为可能影响治疗结果的风险因素。
检索了MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库。纳入描述髋关节置换术后发生假体周围股骨骨折以及采用钢板、髓内钉、螺钉和/或环扎术治疗假体间骨折患者的文章。纳入的文章发表于2000年或之后。由两名独立人员筛选符合条件的摘要,如有分歧通过协商解决。根据手术技术和植入物类型计算并发症和/或再次手术事件的绝对数量及其相应发生率。估计根据手术技术和所使用的植入物类型发生并发症和/或再次手术的相对风险。
分析了49项前瞻性和回顾性研究的可用数据。在1574例骨折中,81.7%采用钢板固定治疗。所有骨折中83.0%采用切开手术。总体并发症发生率为14.3%。最常报告的是固定失败和骨不连(固定失败:4.4%;骨不连:3.9%)。切开手术比微创接骨术后骨不连和再骨折更常见(骨不连:4.5%对0.0%,p = 0.001;再骨折:3.8%对0.6%,p = 0.024)。非锁定钢板(13.0%)骨不连的相对风险比锁定钢板(1.1%)高11.9倍(95%可信区间4.5 - 31.5)(p < 0.0001)。
关于髋关节置换术后假体周围/假体间骨折的已发表研究的临床证据总体较少。本次文献检索表明,切开手术后骨不连和再骨折发生率较高,与锁定钢板相比,非锁定钢板骨不连风险更高。基于现有的临床证据,无法给出治疗建议。