Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Bone Joint J ; 106-B(2): 158-165, 2024 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38425310

ABSTRACT

Aims: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the knee are challenging injuries. This study aims to describe the characteristics of knee PPFs and the impact of patient demographics, fracture types, and management modalities on in-hospital mortality. Methods: Using a multicentre study design, independent of registry data, we included adult patients sustaining a PPF around a knee arthroplasty between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Univariate, then multivariable, logistic regression analyses were performed to study the impact of patient, fracture, and treatment on mortality. Results: Out of a total of 1,667 patients in the PPF study database, 420 patients were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.4%. Multivariable analyses suggested that American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD), history of rheumatic disease, fracture around a loose implant, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) during hospital stay were each independently associated with mortality. Each point increase in ASA grade independently correlated with a four-fold greater mortality risk (odds ratio (OR) 4.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 14.06); p = 0.026). Patients with PVD have a nine-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 9.1 (95% CI 1.25 to 66.47); p = 0.030) and patients with rheumatic disease have a 6.8-fold increase in mortality risk (OR 6.8 (95% CI 1.32 to 34.68); p = 0.022). Patients with a fracture around a loose implant (Unified Classification System (UCS) B2) have a 20-fold increase in mortality, compared to UCS A1 (OR 20.9 (95% CI 1.61 to 271.38); p = 0.020). Mode of management was not a significant predictor of mortality. Patients managed with revision arthroplasty had a significantly longer length of stay (median 16 days; p = 0.029) and higher rates of return to theatre, compared to patients treated nonoperatively or with fixation. Conclusion: The mortality rate in PPFs around the knee is similar to that for native distal femur and neck of femur fragility fractures. Patients with certain modifiable risk factors should be optimized. A national PPF database and standardized management guidelines are currently required to understand these complex injuries and to improve patient outcomes.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Femoral Fractures , Periprosthetic Fractures , Rheumatic Diseases , Adult , Humans , Periprosthetic Fractures/etiology , Knee Joint/surgery , Knee/surgery , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Femoral Fractures/surgery , Rheumatic Diseases/etiology , Rheumatic Diseases/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Reoperation
2.
Injury ; 54(12): 111152, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37939635

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the hip joint are increasing in prevalence. In this collaborative study, we aimed to investigate the impact of patient demographics, fracture characteristics, and modes of management on in-hospital mortality of PPFs involving the hip. METHODS: Using a multi-centre cohort study design, we retrospectively identified adults presenting with a PPF around the hip over a 10-year period. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to study the independent correlation between patient, fracture, and treatment factors on mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,109 patients were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 5.3%. Multivariable analyses suggested that age, male sex, abbreviated mental test score (AMTS), pneumonia, renal failure, history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and deep surgical site infection were each independently associated with mortality. Each yearly increase in age independently correlates with a 7% increase in mortality (OR 1.07, p=0.019). The odds of mortality was 2.99 times higher for patients diagnosed with pneumonia during their hospital stay [OR 2.99 (95% CI 1.07-8.37) p=0.037], and 7.25 times higher for patients that developed renal failure during their stay [OR 7.25 (95% CI 1.85-28.47) p=0.005]. Patients with history of PVD have a six-fold greater mortality risk (OR 6.06, p=0.003). Mode of treatment was not a significant predictor of mortality. CONCLUSION: The in-hospital mortality rate of PPFs around the hip exceeds 5%. The fracture subtype and mode of management are not independent predictors of mortality, while patient factors such as age, AMTS, history of PVD, pneumonia, and renal failure can independently predict mortality. Peri-operative optimisation of modifiable risk factors such as lung and kidney function in patients with PPFs around the hip during their hospital stay is of utmost importance.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Hip Fractures , Peripheral Vascular Diseases , Periprosthetic Fractures , Pneumonia , Renal Insufficiency , Adult , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Cohort Studies , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Peripheral Vascular Diseases/surgery , Reoperation
3.
Hip Int ; 21(5): 577-82, 2011.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21948040

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the reliability of three commonly used radiological assessments of total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the electronic picture archiving and communications system (PACS). Thirty-three patients were selected at random at a mean of 7.2 years after THA. The Barrack, Gruen and Hodgkinson evaluations of cementing quality, loosening/radiolucency were graded. Three observers assessed each radiograph (one consultant orthopaedic surgeon, one senior orthopaedic registrar and one senior house officer). Four weeks after the initial assessment, each radiograph was reviewed a second time. The findings indicated that the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the Barrack, Gruen and Hodgkinson methods were questionable. Inter-observer reliability using the Gruen system was poor, using the Barrack system it was moderate to good, and fair to good using the Hodgkinson assessment. Intra-observer reliability was moderate to good for Barrack assessment, poor to good using Gruen zone assessments, but good to very good for the Hodgkinson assessment. The use of Barrack, Gruen and Hodgkinson assessments to evaluate femoral and acetabular loosening should be questioned since these exhibit limited inter- and intra-observer reliability on PACS radiographs, but of the three, the Hodgkinson system is the most reliable.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Hip Joint/diagnostic imaging , Medical Record Linkage/methods , Osteolysis/diagnostic imaging , Prosthesis Failure/etiology , Radiology Information Systems , Diagnostic Services , Female , Hip Joint/surgery , Hip Prosthesis , Humans , Male , Observer Variation , Osteolysis/etiology , Radiography , Reproducibility of Results
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...