objective: proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) are gradually increasing and surgical management is often associated with high risk of complications, due to elderly population and associated comorbidities. patients and methods: we retrospectively assessed 39 patients at least at 2-years follow-up. we identified two study groups, similar for demographic data. group a included patients surgically treated without involving prosthetic implants, whereas group B included patients in which an implant revision was performed. results: data were recorded from January 2017 to february 2020, and 39 patients were included: 30 females (76.9%) and 9 males (23.1%), with a confirmed diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture of the proximal femur. 23 (58.9%) patients were treated with open reduction and Internal fixation (ORIF), 12 (30.7%) with revision surgery and 4 (10.3%) were treated by modular megaprosthesis. conclusions: the treatment options considered in the study, revision arthroplasty and internal fixation had shown no significant differences as a matter of clinical outcomes and postoperative complications.
Marino, S., Giuliani, A., de Mauro, D., Rovere, G., Smakaj, A., Sassara, G.m., et al. (2022). Treatment options for proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty: a single center experience. EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 26(1), 113-118 [10.26355/eurrev_202211_30290].
Treatment options for proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures in Total Hip Arthroplasty: a single center experience
Smakaj A.;Liuzza F.
2022-01-01
Abstract
objective: proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFFs) are gradually increasing and surgical management is often associated with high risk of complications, due to elderly population and associated comorbidities. patients and methods: we retrospectively assessed 39 patients at least at 2-years follow-up. we identified two study groups, similar for demographic data. group a included patients surgically treated without involving prosthetic implants, whereas group B included patients in which an implant revision was performed. results: data were recorded from January 2017 to february 2020, and 39 patients were included: 30 females (76.9%) and 9 males (23.1%), with a confirmed diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture of the proximal femur. 23 (58.9%) patients were treated with open reduction and Internal fixation (ORIF), 12 (30.7%) with revision surgery and 4 (10.3%) were treated by modular megaprosthesis. conclusions: the treatment options considered in the study, revision arthroplasty and internal fixation had shown no significant differences as a matter of clinical outcomes and postoperative complications.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
113-118-1.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
336.98 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
336.98 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.