Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures: Results of two treatment strategies. / [Artículo traducido] Fracturas ipsilaterales proximales y diafisarias del fémur: resultados de dos estrategias de tratamiento.

INTRODUCTION: Ipsilateral proximal and shaft femoral fractures typically occur in young adults after high-energy trauma. No consensus exists regarding the optimal internal fixation device or surgical strategy for these complex fractures. Our main objective is to identify differences on outcomes and complications between patients treated with one or combined implants. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study in patients with associated fractures of the proximal (31 AO) and shaft femur (32 AO). We divided the patients into two groups according to the use of single (GroupI) or combined implants (GroupII). Demographic, clinical, radiological, surgical data and development of complications were collected. RESULTS: We identified 28 patients (19 men and 9 women) with an average age of 43years. We used an anterograde femoral nail in GroupI (17 patients) and a retrograde femoral nail or a plate associated with hip lag screws or sliding hip screw in GroupII (11 patients). Patients were followed up for 26.28 (9.12-62.88) months. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head, osteoarthritis, infection or nonunion was found in 9 patients (32%). No significant differences (P=.70) were found in complications between two groups or between definitive surgical fixation before or after the first 24h. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in the development of complications or timing of definitive fixation were found between the use of one or combined implants in ipsilateral proximal femur and shaft fractures. Regardless of the implant chosen, an appropriate osteosynthesis technique is crucial, even so high complication rates are expected.

[Mid-term complications of the monopolar, modular radial head prosthesis]. / Complicaciones a mediano plazo de la prótesis monopolar modular de cabeza radial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to assess the type, frequency and severity of complications after the implantation of the modular monopolar radial head prosthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with 48 radial head prostheses implanted between 2009 and 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were evaluated clinical and radiographically for a mean follow-up of 43.55 months (range: 12-89). RESULTS: The same type of prosthesis was implanted in every patient (Ascension Modular Radial Head). The average score in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 88.29 ± 9.9 points. During the follow-up, three patients (6.25%) suffered from continuous pain. Twelve cases (25.5%) showed radiological oversizing, though only five were symptomatic. Heterotopic ossification was detected in twenty-seven cases (57.4%). Eleven patients (23.4%) developed postoperative stiffness. Nineteen cases (40.42%) showed periprosthetic osteolysis, from which seven were symptomatic. Thirteen patients (27%) developed surgery-related complications: three cases of infection, four cases of symptomatic loosening, two neurapraxies, one instability and three cases of oversizing with associated stiffness. Nine patients (18.75%) required reintervention. DISCUSSION: Our study obtains a 27% of overall complications, mostly related to oversizing and prosthetic loosening, and 19% of reinterventions. These results are similar to those presented in previous studies, with variations depending on the time of follow-up. Further research is also required to evaluate long-term results and the potential progression of the radiographic findings. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these data stress the need for improvement in both the surgical technique and the design of the implants.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar el tipo, la frecuencia y la gravedad de las complicaciones después de la implantación de la prótesis monopolar modular de cabeza radial. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se revisaron retrospectivamente 47 pacientes con 48 prótesis de cabeza radial implantadas entre 2009 y 2017 durante una media de 43.55 meses (rango: 12-89). RESULTADOS: Se implantó el mismo tipo de prótesis en cada paciente (Ascension Modular Radial Head). La puntuación media obtenida en la clasificación Mayo Elbow Performance Score fue de 88.29 ± 9.9 puntos. Durante el seguimiento tres pacientes (6.25%) sufrieron dolor continuo. Doce casos (25.5%) mostraron sobredimensión radiológica, aunque sólo cinco fueron sintomáticos. Se detectó osificación heterotópica en 27 casos (57.4%), 11 pacientes (23.4%) desarrollaron rigidez postoperatoria, 19 casos (40.42%) mostraron osteólisis periprotésica, de los cuales siete fueron sintomáticos, 13 pacientes (27%) presentaron complicaciones: tres casos de infección, cuatro casos de aflojamiento sintomático, dos neuroapraxias, una inestabilidad y tres casos de sobredimensionamiento con rigidez asociada. Nueve pacientes (18.75%) fueron reintervenidos. DISCUSIÓN: Presentamos 27% de complicaciones globales, principalmente relacionadas con la sobredimensión y el aflojamiento protésico y 19% de reintervenciones. Estos resultados son similares a los descritos en estudios previos con variaciones en función del tiempo de seguimiento. Asimismo, se requieren nuevos estudios para evaluar los resultados a largo plazo y la posible progresión de los hallazgos radiográficos. CONCLUSIÓN: En conjunto, estos datos ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de mejoría tanto de la técnica quirúrgica como del diseño de los implantes.

Complicaciones a mediano plazo de la prótesis monopolar modular de cabeza radial / Mid-term complications of the monopolar, modular radial head prosthesis

Resumen: Introducción: El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar el tipo, la frecuencia y la gravedad de las complicaciones después de la implantación de la prótesis monopolar modular de cabeza radial. Material y métodos: Se revisaron retrospectivamente 47 pacientes con 48 prótesis de cabeza radial implantadas entre 2009 y 2017 durante una media de 43.55 meses (rango: 12-89). Resultados: Se implantó el mismo tipo de prótesis en cada paciente (Ascension Modular Radial Head) . La puntuación media obtenida en la clasificación Mayo Elbow Performance Score fue de 88.29 ± 9.9 puntos. Durante el seguimiento tres pacientes (6.25%) sufrieron dolor continuo. Doce casos (25.5%) mostraron sobredimensión radiológica, aunque sólo cinco fueron sintomáticos. Se detectó osificación heterotópica en 27 casos (57.4%), 11 pacientes (23.4%) desarrollaron rigidez postoperatoria, 19 casos (40.42%) mostraron osteólisis periprotésica, de los cuales siete fueron sintomáticos, 13 pacientes (27%) presentaron complicaciones: tres casos de infección, cuatro casos de aflojamiento sintomático, dos neuroapraxias, una inestabilidad y tres casos de sobredimensionamiento con rigidez asociada. Nueve pacientes (18.75%) fueron reintervenidos. Discusión: Presentamos 27% de complicaciones globales, principalmente relacionadas con la sobredimensión y el aflojamiento protésico y 19% de reintervenciones. Estos resultados son similares a los descritos en estudios previos con variaciones en función del tiempo de seguimiento. Asimismo, se requieren nuevos estudios para evaluar los resultados a largo plazo y la posible progresión de los hallazgos radiográficos. Conclusión: En conjunto, estos datos ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de mejoría tanto de la técnica quirúrgica como del diseño de los implantes.

Abstract: Introduction: The objective of this study is to assess the type, frequency and severity of complications after the implantation of the modular monopolar radial head prosthesis. Material and methods: Forty-seven patients with 48 radial head prostheses implanted between 2009 and 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were evaluated clinical and radiographically for a mean follow-up of 43.55 months (range: 12-89). Results: The same type of prosthesis was implanted in every patient (Ascension Modular Radial Head). The average score in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 88.29 ± 9.9 points. During the follow-up, three patients (6.25%) suffered from continuous pain. Twelve cases (25.5%) showed radiological oversizing, though only five were symptomatic. Heterotopic ossification was detected in twenty-seven cases (57.4%). Eleven patients (23.4%) developed postoperative stiffness. Nineteen cases (40.42%) showed periprosthetic osteolysis, from which seven were symptomatic. Thirteen patients (27%) developed surgery-related complications: three cases of infection, four cases of symptomatic loosening, two neurapraxies, one instability and three cases of oversizing with associated stiffness. Nine patients (18.75%) required reintervention. Discussion: Our study obtains a 27% of overall complications, mostly related to oversizing and prosthetic loosening, and 19% of reinterventions. These results are similar to those presented in previous studies, with variations depending on the time of follow-up. Further research is also required to evaluate long-term results and the potential progression of the radiographic findings. Conclusion: Taken together, these data stress the need for improvement in both the surgical technique and the design of the implants.