MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W151595430

Clinical and biomechanical assessment of the treatment of type B periprosthetic fractures of the femur

2012· dissertation· en· W151595430 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haddad Fs

Notice bibliographique

RevueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2012
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPeriprostheticMedicineFemurFixation (population genetics)ImplantArthroplastySurgeryFemur fractureDentistry
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Total hip arthroplasty is a well established treatment modality for the diseased hip. The number implanted rises annually on a global scale which is mirrored by increasing indications. After aseptic loosening and infection, periprosthetic fracture remains one of the commonest complications of this otherwise successful surgery. Management is geared towards restoring function through fixation of the fracture. The general aim of this thesis is to validate the classification of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around total hip arthroplasty, provide evidence towards the outcomes of methods of fixation of these fractures, and present supplementary biomechanical data regarding fixation and implant stress. It is hypothesised that the Vancouver classification will be a reliable and reproducible system to use, that strut grafts, cables and long-stemmed implants will improve function and outcome when used to manage these injuries, and that biomechanical models will provide evidence on why the use of the implants is successful. Study I The purpose of this study was to ensure that the Vancouver Classification of periprosthetic fractures which is most widely used classification system of periprosthetic fractures is repeatable. It was hypothesised that the system would be reliable amongst for all grades of clinician. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.61-0.74 and the intra-rater agreement ranged from 0.59-0.67. Validity analysis was scored at 77% (κ = 0.67). The Vancouver Classification was shown to be reliable and reproducible. Study II The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 40 periprosthetic femoral fractures around stable hip implants treated with cortical onlay strut allografts without revision of the stem. It was hypothesised that this treatment would improve function and result in bony union. At a mean follow-up of 28 months, 98% of patients had radiological evidence of union with all but one of the surviving patients returned to their preoperative functional level within one year. Study III The purpose of this biomechanical cadaveric study was to determine the effect of allograft cortical strut length, configuration, cable number, cable tension and the use of wire or cable on the fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It was hypothesised that an increasing number of struts and the use of cable would improve fracture stability. Fracture stability was found to increase with the use of two rather than one strut, and by using cables rather than wires. Study IV The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of using cementless femoral stems in conjunction with cortical struts, cable plating systems, bone allograft and demineralised bone matrix in 26 patients with Vancouver B2 or B3 fractures. It was hypothesised that this treatment would improve function and lead to radiological union. It was found that all fractures were healed clinically and radiologically, and all patients were reported to be satisfied with the outcome. Study V The purpose of this biomechanical study was to determine the strain exerted by an uncemented femoral implant upon a synthetic, composite femur modelling various clinical scenarios. It was hypothesised that strain would be reduced when using a grip, strut or cables. It was found that these devices did reduce the strain exerted upon the femur and may be useful in preventing femoral stem fractures. Study VI The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of treating periprosthetic femoral fractures around unstable hip implants treated with revision to an uncoated locked Kent Hip prosthesis. It was hypothesised that this method of treatment would improve clinical and radiological outcome in the 36 patients included in the study group. Harris Hip Scores improved and fracture union was seen in all but one patient; there were three patients in whom the implant was subsequently revised. Study VII The purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate interlocking long stem femoral prostheses as either temporary functional spacers or as definitive implants in cases of infected periprosthetic femoral fractures. It was hypothesised that these devices would improve the clinical and radiological outcomes of these patients. The Cannulok uncoated stem was used in twelve cases and the Kent Hip Prosthesis in five cases. Patients were asked post-operatively they were satisfied with the outcome achieved. All patients were satisfied and in eleven cases, revision to a definitive stem was undertaken after successful control of the infection and fracture union. Conclusions The management of periprosthetic fractures is a complex issue. There are numerous ways to manage this injury and treatment must be tailored to the patient and to the specific injury sustained. The results of this work demonstrate that classifying periprosthetic fractures using the Vancouver system is valid. Furthermore cortical struts are an effective adjunct with proven biomechanical advantages in non-infected cases around stable implants, whilst long cementless stems lead to excellent outcomes in the presence of a loose implant irrespective of infection.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,068
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,454

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUCL Discovery (University College London)Même sujetOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyTravaux en français237 207