骨水泥长柄假体结合钛缆固定治疗老年Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折

目的评价使用骨水泥长柄假体结合钛缆固定治疗老年Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折的疗效。方法笔者自2008-01—2012-04诊治Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折14例,骨折断端采用钛缆固定,使用长柄骨水泥假体翻修松动的假体。结果本组手术时间平均172(120~300)min,失血量平均650(300~1 000)ml。所有患者均获随访56(36~87)个月。无一例失访。术前Harris评分平均34(28~42)分,术后Harris评分平均83(77~90)分。所有患者骨折均愈合,末次随访时无一例发生假体松动。1例术后2周出现下肢深静脉血栓。结论使用长柄骨水泥假体结合钛缆固定是治疗老年Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折的有效选择。     

全涂层远端固定长柄假体治疗髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的临床研究

目的分析全涂层远端固定长柄假体治疗髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折的临床效果。方法回顾性分析35例使用全涂层远端固定长柄假体治疗的髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折病例,根据Vancouver分型,B2型12例,B3型20例,C型3例,通过Harris评分对患髋进行功能评价,X线片观察骨折愈合、股骨柄下沉情况。结果3例行单纯长柄假体翻修,10例行长柄假体翻修＋钢丝环扎固定,22例行长柄假体翻修＋同种异体颗粒骨压配植骨＋同种异体骨板捆绑固定治疗,平均随访4．5年,所有骨折均顺利愈合,平均愈合时间为15．3周,Harris评分平均86．5分,2例股骨柄分别下沉3mm和4mm,均在术后3个月达到稳定,32例假体获得骨长入固定,3例获得稳定的纤维固定,未发现骨溶解、感染以及再发骨折。结论髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折选择全涂层远端固定长柄假体翻修,根据骨缺损严重程度合理选择同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨＋同种异体骨板捆绑固定可以获得良好的临床效果。     

Vancouver B型股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的 探讨全髋关节置换术后Vancouver B型股骨假体周围骨折的治疗方法及其临床疗效.方法 收治全髋关节置换术后Vancouver B型股骨假体周围骨折7例,分别采用锁定加压钢板联合钢丝捆扎,生物型或骨水泥型长柄假体翻修联合钢丝捆扎、局部异体松质骨植骨,生物型长柄假体翻修联合钢丝捆扎、局部自体髂骨植骨治疗.结果 平均随访21个月,骨折均愈合,对位、对线好,平均愈合时间为3.5个月.末次随访时Harris评分平均84分,术后无感染、脱位、深静脉血栓等并发症发生.结论 Vancouver B型骨折应积极采取手术治疗,根据不同的骨折类型选择不同的治疗方法能取得较好的临床疗效.     

全髋关节翻修术中股骨假体周围骨折的处理

目的研究全髋关节翻修术中股骨假体周围骨折的治疗方法。方法对2002年10月至2007年2月在全髋关节翻修术中出现股骨假体周围骨折的32例非感染翻修患者进行回顾性分析。采用Vancouver分型方法对骨折进行分类,其中A型11例,B型16例,C型2例,同时发生A、B型骨折的3例。24例采用加长广泛涂层柄翻修联合异体皮质骨板固定,6例采用加长广泛涂层柄加钢丝固定,1例采用骨水泥假体,1例仅采用异体皮质骨板固定。结果28例患者获得随访,平均随访时间23.5个月(3~56个月)。术后12~22周所有患者骨折均愈合(平均17.5周)。1例患者术后患肢疼痛,2例同侧膝关节僵直。术后平均Harris评分为92分。结论绝大多数翻修术中出现股骨假体周围骨折的患者能顺利恢复功能。非骨水泥广泛涂层柄可能是较好的选择。异体皮质骨板移植对骨量较差的患者来说是有用的技术。     

多孔型长柄假体联合Accordo线缆系统治疗Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折

目的观察采用多孔型长柄假体置换联合Accordo线缆系统环扎固定治疗Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2010-01—2012-12采用多孔型长柄假体置换联合Accordo线缆系统环扎固定治疗的12例Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折。结果本组12例均获得随访,随访时间平均5.2(4~6)年。所有患者骨折均愈合,骨折愈合时间平均4.2(3~7)个月。末次随访时髋关节功能Harris评分为82~94(86.2±5.6)分,优3例,良7例,可2例。膝关节功能HSS评分为85~96(90.2±2.6)分,优4例,良7例,可1例。结论多孔型长柄假体置换联合Accordo线缆系统环扎固定治疗Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折疗效满意,初始稳定性好,可促进骨折愈合,假体松动、下沉发生率低。     

万向锁定股骨远端钛板系统治疗Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折

目的 探讨万向锁定股骨远端钛板系统治疗Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折的临床疗效.方法 系统采用闭合复位万向锁定股骨远端钛板内固定治疗12例Vancouver B1型股骨假体周围骨折.结果 12例平均随访16.6个月,均达到骨性愈合,骨折平均愈合时间4.3个月.患髋Harris评分平均82.4分.结论 万向锁定股骨远端钛板系统内固定是一种新的、有效微创治疗Vancouver B1股骨假体周围骨折的方法.     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗的随访研究

目的 探讨全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗方法的选择,总结同种异体皮质骨板移植重建股骨假体周围骨折的临床效果.方法 22例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者,男7例,女15例;年龄平均65岁(53～75岁).Vancouver分类B1型5例,B2型4例,B3型13例.B1型骨折采用异体皮质骨板移植加钢丝环扎治疗;B2型骨折选择加长股骨柄翻修;B3型骨折选择骨水泥柄翻修,加同种异体皮质骨板移植和钢丝环扎同定.所有患者均获得随访,随访时间平均67个月(37～95个月).采用Harris髋关节功能评分、X线片、外周血T淋巴细胞亚群、抗体免疫复合物检测 和核素骨显像对治疗结果进行评价.结果 22例患者骨折全部愈合,21例患者能自由行走,1例需要助 行器帮助.末次随访Harris评分平均89分(79～93分).患者未发生免疫排斥反应;术后3个月,骨折愈合,术后12个月,移植骨板与宿主骨骨性愈合,股骨皮质厚度增加3～5mm;核素骨显像骨板移植区放射性核素分布较对侧浓集.3例患者移植骨板出现部分吸收现象.术后2年.骨板与宿主骨融合,移植骨板吸收停止.结论 针对股骨假体周围骨折不同类型分别采取不同方法治疗能够取得较好疗效,同种异体皮质骨板移植在维持骨折稳定性、促进骨折愈合、增加局部骨量和改善骨强度方面有较好疗效.     

Solution广泛多孔钛涂层长柄假体结合钢丝环扎固定治疗股骨头置换术后Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折的中期随访

背景：股骨头置换术后Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折多伴有假体松动,患者年龄大,并存疾病多,骨质条件差,围手术期处理及手术技术难度大,并发症发生率高。 目的：评价Solution广泛多孔钛涂层长柄假体结合钢丝环扎固定治疗股骨头置换术后Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折的中期疗效。 方法：回顾分析2008年1月至2010年12月我科收治的14例股骨头置换术后Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折患者的临床资料,其中男6例,女8例,年龄66-80岁,平均70.3岁。所有患者均采用骨折切开复位钢丝环扎固定结合Solution股骨柄进行翻修手术。末次随访时进行Harris髋关节评分（术前由于骨折未能进行Harris髋关节评分）;术前,术后3、6、12个月及末次随访时摄X线片,用于评价骨折复位及愈合,假体初始固定及中期生存情况。 结果：共16例患者,1例术后3年死于肺癌,1例失访,14例获得随访,随访时间3-5年,平均4.2年。末次随访时Harris评分88.7分。X线显示骨折复位,股骨柄超过骨折远端的固定长度超过5 cm,与股骨压配良好。骨折愈合时间3-6个月,平均（3.8＆#177;1.3）个月。末次随访时未见股骨柄松动、下沉。无感染、深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞。 结论：Solution股骨柄结合钢丝环扎固定治疗股骨头置换术后Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折中期疗效好,其远期结果有待于进一步的随访。     

带螺钉锥形记忆合金环抱接骨板在股骨假体周围骨折中的应用

目的 探讨应用带螺钉锥形记忆合金环抱接骨板治疗Vancouver AL型、B1型股骨假体周围骨折的临床疗效.方法 对9例(Vancouver AL型5例、B1型4例)股骨假体周围骨折患者行切开复位,带螺钉锥形记忆合金环抱接骨板内固定、AL型结合钢丝固定方法处理.结果 9例均获随访,时间4～23个月.骨折均愈合,时间为2～3.5个月.无感染、骨折不愈合、内固定断裂、假体松动现象.按Harris标准:优7例,良2例.结论 带螺钉锥形记忆合金环抱接骨板治疗Vancouver AL型、B1型股骨假体周围骨折固定可靠,疗效满意.     

全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的：分析全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的病因和治疗结果．探讨其治疗方法。方法：回顾性研究自1998年12月-2003年3月治疗并随访观察的11例全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折患者，男8例，女3例，平均年龄为56岁(43-75岁)，采用Vancouver分型，A型2例，B2型7例．B3型1例，C型1例。采用非手术治疗5例；手术治疗6例，其中1例为非手术治疗后骨折畸形愈合行翻修术。采用长柄假体翻修联合异体皮质骨板固定5例．其中使用非骨水泥型远端固定假体4例．使用骨水泥型假体1例。采用切开复位内固定治疗1例。结果：所有病例均获随访，平均随访25．6个月(7～50个月)。9例骨折愈合，平均愈合时间4个月(3-6个月)，2例骨折未愈合。均为非手术治疗病例，手术治疗6例骨折均愈合。至目前为止，7例假体稳定，1例翻修术后出现连续的影像学透亮线．3例假体松动，假体稳定的患者功能好于假体松动者．假体稳定患者的Harris评分平均91分。所有异体皮质骨板在1年内均与宿主骨整台．没有异体皮质骨板骨折发生。结论：假体稳定的A型骨折可以采用非手术治疗。对于B1型和C型骨折，如无手术禁忌证，应行切开复位内固定术。对于假体松动的骨折患者，使用长柄远端固定非骨水混型假体联合异体皮质骨板是最佳的治疗方法。     

The use of uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral components in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures

We assessed the outcome of patients with Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures treated with femoral revision using an uncemented extensively porous-coated implant. A retrospective clinical and radiographic assessment of 22 patients with a mean follow-up of 33.7 months was performed. The mean time from the index procedure to fracture was 10.8 years. There were 17 patients with a satisfactory result. Complications in four patients included subsidence in two, deep sepsis in one, and delayed union in one. Concomitant acetabular revision was required in 19 patients. Uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral stems incorporate distally allowing stable fixation. We found good early survival rates and a low incidence of nonunion using this implant.     

Management of Vancouver type B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures using an uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem prosthesis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of femoral revision using an uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stems with or without onlay strut allografts in the treatment of Vancouver type B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 17 cases of periprosthetic femoral fracture (eight B2 and nine B3) treated with the uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Harris Hip Score and Barthel ADL index. Radiological evaluations were conducted using Beals and Towers’ criteria. Any complication during the follow-up period was recorded.

Results

The average follow-up period was 41.7 ± 31.08 (range, 15–132) months. The average Harris Hip Score was 68.2 ± 18.4 (range, 32–100), and the average Barthel ADL index was 80.1 ± 19.75 (range, 30–100) points at the final follow-up. All fractures were united, and a good graft consolidation was achieved in 5 of 9 cases. There was femoral stem subsidence in 4 cases less than 10 mm without an evidence of loosening both radiologically and clinically. The radiological results using Beals and Towers’ criteria were excellent in eight hips, good in five and poor in four.

Conclusions

An uncemented extensively porous-coated long femoral stem together with or without onlay strut allografts provides a good fracture stability that promotes fracture healing and offers a successful solution for the management of Vancouver type B2 and B3 femoral periprosthetic fractures.     

Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty with femoral component revision

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty is indicated for most periprosthetic fractures that occur around the stem of the femoral implant. The purpose of the present study was to assess the results and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. METHODS: We evaluated 118 hips in 116 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty because of an acute Vancouver type-B periprosthetic femoral fracture. The femoral implant used for the revision was a cemented stem in forty-two hips, a proximally porous-coated uncemented stem in twenty-eight, an extensively porous-coated stem in thirty, and an allograft-prosthesis composite or tumor prosthesis in eighteen. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.4 years. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the probability of survival was 90% at five years and 79.2% at ten years with revision or removal of the femoral implant for any reason as the end point. Sixteen femoral components were rerevised: ten were rerevised because of loosening; three, because of loosening in association with a fracture nonunion; two, because of recurrent dislocation; and one, because of a new periprosthetic fracture. Additionally, six femoral implants were resected because of deep infection (five) or prosthetic loosening (one). Radiographs of the ninety-six hips with a surviving implant showed that twenty-one had evidence of loosening of the femoral implant, four had a nonunion of the femoral fracture, and two had both a nonunion and loosening of the femoral implant. CONCLUSIONS: Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture around the stem of the femoral implant successfully restored function for most patients. The greatest long-term problems were prosthetic loosening and fracture nonunion. Better results were seen when an uncemented, extensively porous-coated stem was used.     

Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component

Periprosthetic femoral fractures can be a difficult management problem. Proximal femoral fractures with a loose component are managed best with revision arthroplasty. We reviewed the midterm follow-up of 14 proximal femoral fractures managed with a long-stem extensively porous-coated femoral component. The average follow-up in this series was 8.2 years (minimum, 5.3 years). Fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation, supplemental cortical strut grafting when required, and a canal-filling implant. All fractures achieved union with an average time to union of 4 months. There have been no component failures requiring revision. Twelve prostheses achieved stable bone ingrowth, 1 component showed stable fibrous ingrowth, and 1 component was not stable but was not symptomatic enough to warrant revision.     

Dynamic compression plates for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures: a 3-year follow-up of 18 cases

Background There is no consensus on the best surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. We report our experience with a dynamic compression plate.

Patients and methods We reviewed the results of 18 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation using the dynamic compression plate (DCP). There were 7 Vancouver type B1, 2 type B2 and 9 type B3 fractures. 16 cases had previously undergone at least one revision procedure. In addition to a DCP plate, all B2 and B3 fractures were revised to cemented prostheses, and all B3 fractures were revised with impaction grafting. Mean follow-up was 39 months.

Results The mean healing time for those 11 cases that united was 13 months. One B1-type and one B3-type fracture with plate fracture within 8 months of surgery failed to heal. Furthermore, one B1-type fracture and one B2-type fracture failed and developed nonunion. 3 patients died, from causes not related to surgery, within 8 months after surgery without signs of healing.

Interpretation Open reduction and internal fixation using DCPs seems to be a valid method for the treatment of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures with stable stem in place. If the stem is unstable, we suggest that DCPs may be used in association with femoral revision using a long stem. In cases with stable stem (B1), we are inclined to agree with other authors that additional fixation using an extramedullary cortical strut graft may be necessary to improve stability and promote final healing.     

Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: reliable choice for stem revision in Paprosky femoral type III defects

Between January 1999 and August 2008, ninety-six femoral revisions were performed with extensively porous-coated stems in Paprosky type III femoral defects (89 type IIIA and 7 type IIIB defects). Seven type IIIB defects with a mean canal of 16.5 mm were observed; 6 defects achieved stable bone ingrowth and 1 achieved stable fibrous condition. Average postoperative Harris Hip Score was 92.3±8 (range, 77-100), and all scores improved postoperatively. At a mean follow-up of 65.7 months, 92 stems achieved bone ingrowth, and 1 stem (type IIIB) achieved a stable fibrous condition. Three patients died from causes unrelated to the surgery during follow-up. The most frequent diagnosis for revision of the femoral component was loosening of the cementless stem (53 patients; 55.2%), followed by status after a Girdlestone procedure (21 patients; 21.8%), after total hip arthroplasty with acetabular wear (10 patients; 10.4%), loosening of the cemented stem (7 patients; 7.3%), and periprosthetic fracture (5 patients; 5.2%). The authors performed 65 total hip arthroplasty revisions, 23 femoral component revisions, and 8 revisions of femoral components with cemented liners in patients with well-fixed acetabular shells. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision for Paprosky type III femoral defects provided good mid-term durability.     

Dynamic compression plates for Vancouver type B periprosthetic femoral fractures

Background There is no consensus on the best surgical treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. We report our experience with a dynamic compression plate.

Patients and methods We reviewed the results of 18 periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation using the dynamic compression plate (DCP). There were 7 Vancouver type B1, 2 type B2 and 9 type B3 fractures. 16 cases had previously undergone at least one revision procedure. In addition to a DCP plate, all B2 and B3 fractures were revised to cemented prostheses, and all B3 fractures were revised with impaction grafting. Mean follow-up was 39 months.

Results The mean healing time for those 11 cases that united was 13 months. One B1-type and one B3-type fracture with plate fracture within 8 months of surgery failed to heal. Furthermore, one B1-type fracture and one B2-type fracture failed and developed nonunion. 3 patients died, from causes not related to surgery, within 8 months after surgery without signs of healing.

Interpretation Open reduction and internal fixation using DCPs seems to be a valid method for the treatment of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures with stable stem in place. If the stem is unstable, we suggest that DCPs may be used in association with femoral revision using a long stem. In cases with stable stem (B1), we are inclined to agree with other authors that additional fixation using an extramedullary cortical strut graft may be necessary to improve stability and promote final healing.