Kennedy Ian W, Hrycaiczuk Alex, Ng Nigel Y B, Sheerins Owen, Patil Sanjeev R, Jones Bryn G, Stark Andrew, Meek R M Dominic
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK.
Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF, UK.
J Orthop. 2022 Mar 26;31:124-128. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.03.008. eCollection 2022 May-Jun.
To compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF).
Patients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database.
We identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate.
With appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.
比较采用长柄非骨水泥型假体翻修与骨水泥型假体翻修治疗温哥华B2型假体周围骨折（PPF）的疗效。
利用我们前瞻性整理的数据库，确定2008年至2018年期间接受骨水泥型假体温哥华B2型PPF手术的患者。
我们确定了43例非骨水泥型翻修和29例骨水泥型假体翻修。骨水泥型假体翻修手术时间较短，某些并发症减少，骨不连发生率未增加，柄下沉程度较低，再次翻修率无差异。
经过适当的患者选择，骨水泥型假体翻修和长柄非骨水泥型假体翻修都是治疗温哥华B2型骨折的合适选择。
