Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Orthop Trauma ; 38(2): 57-64, 2024 Feb 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38031262

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes after retrograde intramedullary nailing (rIMN) versus locked plating (LP) of "extreme distal" periprosthetic femur fractures, defined as those that contact or extend distal to the anterior flange. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Eight academic level I trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures at or distal to the anterior flange (OTA/AO 33B-C[VB1]) treated with rIMN or LP. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: The primary outcome was reoperation to promote healing or to treat infection (reoperation for elective removal of symptomatic hardware was excluded from this analysis). Secondary outcomes included nonunion, delayed union, fixation failure, infection, overall reoperation rate, distal femoral alignment, and ambulatory status at final follow-up. Outcomes were compared between patients treated with rIMN or LP. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients treated with rIMN and 224 patients treated with LP were included. The rIMN group had fewer points of fixation in the distal segment (rIMN: 3.5 ± 1.1 vs. LP: 6.0 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) and more patients who were allowed to weight-bear as tolerated immediately postoperatively (rIMN: 45%; LP: 9%, P < 0.01). Reoperation to promote union and/or treat infection was 8% in the rIMN group and 16% in the LP group ( P = 0.122). There were no significant differences in nonunion ( P > 0.999), delayed union ( P = 0.079), fixation failure ( P > 0.999), infection ( P = 0.084), or overall reoperation rate ( P > 0.999). Significantly more patients in the rIMN group were ambulatory without assistive devices at final follow-up (rIMN: 35%, LP: 18%, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: rIMN of extreme distal periprosthetic femur fractures has similar complication rates compared with LP, with a possible advantage of earlier return to weight-bearing. Surgeons can consider this treatment strategy in all fractures with stable implants and amenable prosthesis geometry, even extreme distal fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Assuntos
Artroplastia do Joelho , Fraturas do Fêmur , Fixação Intramedular de Fraturas , Fraturas Periprotéticas , Adulto , Humanos , Fixação Intramedular de Fraturas/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fraturas do Fêmur/etiologia , Consolidação da Fratura , Placas Ósseas/efeitos adversos , Fixação Interna de Fraturas , Fêmur/cirurgia , Fraturas Periprotéticas/complicações , Artroplastia do Joelho/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...