Patel Arpit, Ayub Anouska, Iranpour Farhad, Subramanian Padmanabhan
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Barnet Hospital, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
J Orthop Case Rep. 2021 Jul;11(7):98-103. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2021.v11.i07.2336.
Extracapsular femoral neck fractures in the presence of a resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) appear to be independent of suboptimal technique during the initial implantation of the RHA and present with a similar etiology as native hip fractures - that is, a fragility fracture related to pathological or age-related osteoporosis, as a consequence of trauma. In the presence of a well-fixed and previously well-functioning RHA, the options for management include revision arthroplasty or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). In the absence of loosening through mechanisms of wear, infection, metallosis, or suboptimal prosthesis positioning, many authors have advocated ORIF with implant retention. However, there is often debate regarding the use of total hip arthroplasty in these cases.
The authors conducted a thorough assessment of the literature followed by a retrospective review of outcomes for three patients treated by ORIF with implant retention for extracapsular femoral neck fractures around a RHA, using a standardized technique. All patients were independently mobile and active with well-fixed and well-functioning RHAs before the date of injury. All patients suffered low-energy trauma resulting in the fracture. There were no intraoperative or perioperative complications. All patients achieved full weight-bearing status and independent mobility. Two patients achieved radiographic union and returned to full range of movement and independent mobilization comparable to their preoperative state. One patient was lost to follow-up.
The authors believe that fixation of extracapsular proximal femoral fractures distal to a well-fixed, well-functioning RHA is a good management option in an independent and active patient. A higher level of evidence is needed to investigate the surgical management options of these injuries comparing osteosynthesis with revision arthroplasty.
在髋关节表面置换术(RHA)存在的情况下,股骨颈囊外骨折似乎与RHA初次植入时技术欠佳无关,其病因与天然髋关节骨折相似——即因创伤导致的与病理性或年龄相关骨质疏松相关的脆性骨折。在RHA固定良好且先前功能良好的情况下,治疗选择包括翻修关节成形术或切开复位内固定术(ORIF)。在没有因磨损、感染、金属沉着症或假体位置欠佳等机制导致松动的情况下,许多作者主张保留植入物进行ORIF。然而,在这些病例中使用全髋关节置换术常常存在争议。
作者对文献进行了全面评估,随后对三例采用标准化技术保留植入物进行ORIF治疗RHA周围股骨颈囊外骨折的患者的结局进行了回顾性分析。所有患者在受伤前均能独立活动且活跃,RHA固定良好且功能正常。所有患者均遭受低能量创伤导致骨折。术中及围手术期均无并发症。所有患者均达到完全负重状态并恢复独立活动能力。两名患者实现影像学愈合,恢复至与术前状态相当的全范围活动和独立活动能力。一名患者失访。
作者认为,对于固定良好、功能正常的RHA远端的股骨近端囊外骨折,对于独立且活跃的患者,固定是一种良好的治疗选择。需要更高水平的证据来研究将这些损伤进行骨合成与翻修关节成形术比较的手术治疗选择。