Three Hundred and Twenty-one Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures

Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

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.

Écart entre enseignants

0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail

Statut de validation

score_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

Résumé

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the demographics, incidence, and results of treatment of periprosthetic fractures in a nationwide observational study. METHODS: In the years 1999 and 2000, 321 periprosthetic fractures were reported to the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. All of the associated hospital records were collected. At the time of follow-up, the Harris hip score, a health-related quality-of-life measure (the EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] index), and patient satisfaction were used as outcome measurements. A radiologist performed the radiographic evaluation. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients, with a mean age of 73.8 years, sustained a fracture after one or several revision procedures, and 230 patients, with a mean age of 77.9 years, sustained a fracture after a primary total hip replacement. Minor trauma, including a fall to the floor, and a spontaneous fracture were the main etiologies for the injuries. A high number of patients had a loose stem at the time of the fracture (66% in the primary replacement group and 51% in the revision group). Eighty-eight percent of the fractures were classified as Vancouver type B; however, there was difficulty with preoperative categorization of the fractures radiographically. There was a high failure rate resulting in a low short to mid-term prosthetic survival rate. The sixty-six-month survival rate for the entire fracture group, with reoperation as the end point, was 74.8% +/- 5.0%. One factor associated with fracture risk was implant design. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these findings, we believe that high-risk patients should have routine radiographic follow-up. Such a routine could identify a loose implant and make intervention possible before a fracture occurred. Furthermore, we recommend an exploration of the joint to test the stability of the implant in patients with a Vancouver type-B fracture in which the stability of the stem is uncertain.

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.

La notice

Revue

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Thématique

Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Domaine

Medicine

Établissements canadiens

—

Organismes subventionnaires

—

Mots-clés

PeriprostheticMedicineObservational studySurgeryImplantArthroplastyDemographicsIncidence (geometry)RadiographyEtiologyInternal medicine

Résumé présent dans OpenAlex

oui

API

/api/v1/works/W2144428266