全髋关节置换术后温哥华B型假体周围骨折的治疗

背景:全髋关节置换手术是目前最为成功有效的外科手术之一,与之伴随的是多种术后并发症的出现,假体周围骨折是其中最显著的并发症之一,发病率有上升趋势。目的:回顾性研究全髋关节置换术后温哥华B型股骨假体周围骨折的治疗措施。方法:2006年1月至2011年1月收治全髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折33例,男17例,女16例;年龄38～81岁,平均68.2 岁。33 例均为温哥华 B 型假体周围骨折:B1 型骨折组 11 例,采取切开复位钢丝捆扎固定或接骨板固定+异体皮质骨板植骨;B2型骨折组16例,采用记忆合金环抱器+大量植骨或长柄全涂层假体联合钢丝捆扎+局部异体松质骨植骨;B3型骨折6例,采用长柄生物性假体或组配型假体+同种异体骨板联合钢丝捆扎。结果:全部获得随访,随访时间为0.5～5.5年,平均3.6年。髋关节功能恢复良好,骨折愈合,对位对线良好。骨折愈合时间为3～22个月,平均6.5个月。B1型骨折组中1例术后因跌倒再次骨折,行二次翻修手术,末次随访时Harris评分为82～96 分,平均 91.2 分;B2 型骨折组中 1 例术后 3 年出现假体松动下沉,行二次翻修手术,末次随访时 Harris 评分为 76～92 分,平均 87.0 分;B3 型骨折组中 1 例术后 3 个月出现移植骨排异反应与感染,经治疗无效,再次手术取出同种异体骨板,抗生素药物治疗后症状缓解,末次随访时Harris评分为66～80分,平均71.5分。无一例发生深静脉血栓形成、神经损伤等并发症。结论:股骨柄假体周围骨折中温哥华B型较常见,根据骨折类型选择不同的治疗方法,均可获得满意疗效。     

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.     

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。     

人工髋关节股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折治疗的临床分析

目的探讨人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围Vancouver B型骨折患者,进行假体翻修、内固定治疗的效果。方法 2005年1月至2009年12月间,广州医科大学大学附属第一医院关节外科收治人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围B型骨折患者16例,其中11例为全髋,5例为半髋;男4例,女12例;年龄平均69岁(59~81岁);Vancouver分类B1型3例,B2型5例,B3型8例。B1型骨折采用内固定、或加异体皮质骨板移植治疗;B2型骨折选择加长股骨柄翻修、捆扎带环扎;B3型骨折选择加长股骨柄翻修、加同种异体皮质骨板移植和捆扎带环扎固定。所有患者均进行随访,随访时间平均90个月(5~9年)。采用Harris髋关节功能评分、X线片对治疗结果进行评价。结果 12例患者获得随访,骨折全部愈合,患者能自由行走,末次随访髋关节功能评分(Harris评分)平均90分(76~93分)。结论针对人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的不同类型,分别采取切开复位内固定、加长股骨柄假体翻修、异体皮质骨板移植治疗,能取得较好疗效。     

全髋关节置换假体柄周围骨折的治疗

目的 :回顾性研究全髋关节置换假体柄周围骨折的治疗及预防。方法 :将本院近年收治的全髋置换假体柄周围骨折的 8例病例按Vancouver分类方法进行分类 ,其中A1型 3例 ,B1型 3例 ,B2型 1例 ,B3型 1例 ,分别用钢丝环扎固定 ,异体皮质骨板加钢丝环扎 ;骨水泥长柄假体翻修。结果 :术后随访 8～ 18个月 ,骨折愈合 ,假体固定可靠。结论 :全髋关节置换术后假体柄周围骨折用Vancouver分类方法分类 ,简单、适用。采用异体皮质骨板与钢丝环扎固定骨折 ,治疗假体柄周围骨折 ,不仅固定可靠而且能促进骨折愈合、恢复骨量。     

髓内打压植骨结合广泛多孔涂层长柄假体在股骨侧严重骨缺损（PaproskymA型）翻修术中的应用

目的 探讨股骨侧严重骨缺损（Paprosky ⅢA型）翻修中应用髓内打压植骨结合广泛多孔涂层长柄假体的临床疗效.方法 2006年3月～2010年9月,对38例（38髋）Paprosky ⅢA型股骨骨缺损患者行翻修重建,其中男24例,女14例,平均年龄62岁.翻修原因：骨溶解、无菌性松动29例,全髋关节置换术（THA）术后感染二期翻修6例,假体周围骨折3例（Vancouver B3型）.股骨侧干骺端骨缺损采用同种异体颗粒骨髓腔内打压植骨进行修复,股骨柄采用全涂层长柄假体（7～10英寸）.术后定期随访,髋关节功能评价采用Harris评分,影像学采用X线片及CT观察：假体柄有无松动下沉、股骨近端应力遮挡情况、植入的异体颗粒骨与宿主骨整合情况.结果 38例均获得随访,平均随访53.4个月（23～62个月）,Harris评分由术前平均42分（32～47分）,提高至末次随访时平均86分（69～95分）.无患者发生脱位、假体周围骨折.1例术后感染,行再次二期翻修;1例假体柄在术后6个月内下沉4.24 cm,再次翻修时选择更粗的假体柄,末次随访时假体柄稳定;其余所有患者假体柄均牢固固定.3例出现轻-中度应力遮挡.15例近端皮质骨密度及厚度有增加,厚度平均增加约1.8 mm（0.7～3.5 mm）,植入骨与宿主骨逐渐整合并增加了骨缺损区的骨质储备.结论严重骨缺损（Paprosky ⅢA型）的股骨翻修中,采用髓内颗粒骨打压植骨可以很好的修复股骨中上段骨缺损,重建股骨干骺端.依靠广泛多孔涂层长柄假体在远端的牢固压配固定,结合股骨干骺端髓内紧密打压植骨,使假体柄在股骨中上段及远端均能获得较好的初始稳定性,近期临床和影像学结果满意,远期疗效有待观察.     

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。     

广泛微孔涂层非骨水泥假体治疗Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折

目的 评价广泛微孔涂层非骨水泥长柄假体治疗Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折的疗效.方法 2002年10月至2007年5月对10例初次全髋置换术后Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折患者采用广泛微孔涂层非骨水泥长柄假体予以翻修,其中初次置换股骨柄为骨水泥固定者4例,非骨水泥固定6例.结果 10例患者均获随访,平均随访时间44个月(12～67个月),Harris评分平均为87.6分.所有患者骨折均愈合,骨折平均愈合时间4.6个月.8例骨长入稳定,2例纤维稳定,无假体松动和下沉,1例出现大腿痛,3例股骨近端出现应力遮挡.结论 广泛微孔涂层长柄非骨水泥假体治疗Vancouver B2型假体周围骨折,很好地控制了骨折端轴向和旋转稳定性,且骨与假体有很好的骨整合,为骨折的愈合提供了良好的环境,骨折愈合率高.     

人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的 探讨人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗方法及临床效果.方法 采用温哥华术后骨折分型标准,共收治人工髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折13例.结果 13例均获得随访,随访时髋关节功能按Harris评分:优4例,良5例,中3例,差1例.其中1例不愈合,其余12例获骨性愈合.结论 对此类骨折应根据近期影像资料进行周密的术前计划,结合骨折部位、假体稳定性及骨储备情况等因素,选择治疗方案.使用钢丝环扎、非骨水泥型长柄翻修联合应用异体皮质骨板及局部植骨是处理不同类型股骨假体周围骨折的有效治疗方法.     

非骨水泥长柄假体结合同种异体颗粒骨植骨在股骨翻修骨缺损重建中的应用

目的 回顾性分析股骨髓内同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨结合非骨水泥长柄假体在髋关节翻修术中股骨侧骨缺损修复应用的近期临床效果.方法 2003年7月至2009年6月对27例股骨侧骨缺损患者采用同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨,其中男性15例,女性12例,年龄47～78岁,平均67岁.失败原因:骨溶解、无菌性松动20例,全髋关节置换术后假体周围感染二期翻修7例.按Paprosky分型标准,Ⅱ型骨缺损3例,Ⅲ型骨缺损2l例,Ⅳ型骨缺损3例.术中均采用同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨、非骨水泥翻修柄植入.定期随访复查,包括临床、影像学评估,观察假体有无松动、下沉,植入骨活化替代情况以及假体周围骨折等并发症.Harris评分术前平均43分(37～62分).结果 23例患者获得随访,随访时间3～47个月,平均26.4个月.术后末次随访时.Harris评分平均83分(67～97分).术中2例发生股骨大转子骨折,无一例发生术后假体周围骨折等并发症.1例术后发生关节脱位,1例发生深静脉血栓,1例术后2周发生急性感染,经扩创、置管冲洗、抗感染治疗成功保留假体;发生异位骨化1例,Brooker Ⅰ级.影像学所有患者股骨柄中置,无内翻或外翻,随访期内无一例发生股骨柄移位(内翻或外翻角度变化>3°).23例患者显示至少Ⅰ区股骨髓内移植骨与周围骨或与股骨柄整合.4例发生股骨柄假体下沉,平均下沉3.3 mm(2～6 mm).结论 股骨侧翻修中,良好的股骨髓内同种异体颗粒骨打压植骨结合合适的非骨水泥延长柄股骨假体,可以修复关节置换术后各种原因所导致股骨骨缺损、重建股骨完整性,具有很好的近期临床疗效.但中远期临床效果尚待进一步观察.     

Locking plate osteosynthesis for Vancouver Type B1 and Type C periprosthetic fractures of femur: a report on 12 patients

Many methods have been described to stabilise periprosthetic fractures around a total hip arthroplasty. Locking plate fixation offers increased angular stability and, theoretically, better fixation in osteoporotic bone. This study presents our results with the use of locking plate fixation for Vancouver Type B1 and Type C periprosthetic fractures following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Twelve patients underwent fixation of periprosthetic fractures with either a locking compression plate (LCP) or a distal femur less invasive stabilisation system (LISS). There were six Type B1 and six Type C fractures. One patient died soon after surgery. The mean follow-up was 13.9 months (range 12-18 months). The fracture healed in 10 of the remaining 11 patients with a median time to union of 4.8 months. There was one implant failure prior to fracture healing and one implant failure after fracture healing. Both were attributed to technical errors. Seven patients returned to their previous level of mobility. Two patients required the use of one walking stick after fracture healing, but had been able to walk unaided before their fall. One patient required two sticks, after previously requiring only a single stick. There were no infections. Our experience encourages us that locking plates have a role to play in managing periprosthetic fractures around a stable femoral stem, especially in patients with poor soft tissue and osteoporosis.     

Periprosthetic fractures with extensive bone loss treated with onlay strut allografts

We reviewed a consecutive series of 19 patients with comminuted periprosthetic fractures, loosening of the femoral stem (Vancouver type B3) and significant loss of bone stock (Paprosky type III and IV). Sixteen porous-coated long stems and three Exeter stems, all with impaction grafting, were used. Large femoral onlay strut allografts were applied to maintain fracture reduction and improve stability. There was one early re-fracture at the tip of the femoral stem. Eighteen fractures healed without deformity and shortening. At the last follow-up at mean 3.7 (2.0-7.5) years, the mean Harris hip score was 76.4 (57.5-92.0). There was ingrowth of all strut grafts and significant augmentation of periprosthetic bone.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

股骨假体周围骨折手术治疗策略

目的探讨髋关节假体周围骨折患者不同治疗方式的选择。方法本组共对31例髋关节假体周围骨折患者进行了质量,男12例,女19例,平均年龄71岁（60～81岁）。其中温哥华B1型骨折5例;温哥华B2型7例;温哥华B3型12例,温哥华C型7例。13例患者采用骨折切开复位内固定术（B15例;C型7例;B2型1例）;6例B2型骨折采用股骨假体翻修加骨折内固定;12例B3型骨折采用结构性异体骨植骨,假体翻修加骨折内固定术。结果31例患者平均随访9．5年。所有温哥华B1型和C型患者术后达到骨性愈合,平均愈合时间为4个月。1例使用记忆合金环抱器患者术后1年因感染行数次广泛清创,但是难以控制感染而最终取出假体,骨折至今未愈合;1例患者LISS钢板2次手术后失败,钢板断裂,等待再次手术过程中因为其他疾患死亡。结论假体周围骨折的治疗取决于骨折的部位、假体稳定性和骨组织质量。髋关节假体周围骨折的处理较为困难,最好的治疗是预防骨折的发生。选择恰当的治疗方式,是治疗髋关节假体周围骨折的关键。     

全髋置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的治疗

目的分析全髋置换术后假体周围骨折的治疗方法及结果。方法回顾分析2003年1月至2007年12月收治的外伤所致的全髋置换术后假体周围骨折患者12例,男7例,女5例;年龄48～82岁,平均69.7岁。骨折发生于术后1个月～8年,平均3.3年。骨折发生原因：跌伤9例,交通伤2例,不明原因骨折1例。行关节置换术的原发病：股骨头缺血性坏死6例,髋关节退行性骨关节病4例,股骨颈骨折2例。根据Vancouver假体周围骨折分型标准：A型3例,B型7例,C型2例。A型采用保守治疗（外展卧床、牵引）及钢丝捆扎治疗,B型采用锯齿臂环抱内固定器、长柄假体翻修及异体皮质骨植骨治疗,C型应用解剖钢板内固定。结果12例患者均获得随访,随访时间1.5～5.5年,平均2年。除1例患者骨折未愈合外,余患者骨折均愈合,且均未发生感染、内固定断裂等并发症。结论全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折的治疗棘手,治疗方案需结合骨折部位、原置换假体有无松动、局部骨质量、身体状况而制定。