Calcar Preservation Arthroplasty for Unstable Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures in Elderly

Background

The treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to present treatment strategies for unstable intertrochanteric fractures with hemiarthroplasty using standard uncemented collared femoral stems and at the same time preserving the fractured calcar fragment.

Methods

Fifty-four patients aged 75 years or older with unstable intertrochanteric fractures were included in this prospective cohort study. All patients were treated with calcar preserving hemiarthroplasty using cementless collored femoral stems. Fractured calcar fragment was stabilized either by compaction between the implant and femur or fixed with cable grip system. Follow-up evaluations were performed at least 24 months and later. Palmer and Parker mobility score and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score were assessed. We also analyzed radiographs of the operated hip at each follow-up visit.

Results

The patients were 15 males and 39 females with a mean age of 81.3 years (range, 75 to 93 years). The average operative time was 86.6 minutes. The mean transfused blood units were 1.2 units. The average duration of hospital stay was 5.3 days. The preoperative mean mobility score was 6.20. This score was found to be 4.96 on postoperative third day and 5.90 at 24 months postoperatively. The results of the statistical analysis revealed significant increase in the mobility scores at each follow-up after three days. Radiological interpretation revealed no loosening in the cable-grip systems, and no significant subsidence (> 5 mm) of prosthesis was observed.

Conclusions

Calcar preservation arthroplasty is a good option for elderly patients with severe osteoporosis, frail constitution and the patients who are at higher risk for second operation due to unstable intertrochanteric fractures.     

Dynamic Fixation versus Static Fixation in Treatment Effectiveness and Safety for Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

To compare the effectiveness and safety of dynamic fixation (DF) and static fixation (SF) in distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries (DTSI) by a system review and meta‐analysis. PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were systematically searched by computer to select clinical randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort trials comparing DF and SF in treating patients with DTSI. RCT and cohort trials comparing DF and SF for patients with DTSI were included. Inclusion criteria: (i) prospective or retrospective study of patients with DTSI; (ii) patients were diagnosed as having DTSI by imageology and only received DF treatment or SF treatment; (iii) the study compared DF and SF in DTSI; and (iv) one or more of the following outcomes were reported: ankle joint functional score, surgical complications, malreduction of syndesmosis, and second operations. Exclusion criteria: (i) non‐human studies; (ii) DTSI patients accompanied with other complications or other joints injuries; and (iii) full text unavailable. RevMan V5.3 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Outcomes analyzed by Revman software showed that there were no statistically significant differences between DF and SF in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle–hindfoot score (MD, 1.90; 95% CI, ?0.23 to 4.03; P = 0.08; I² = 0%), Olerud–Molander (OM) score (MD, 1.92; 95% CI, ?7.96 to 11.81; P = 0.70; I² = 55%), incidence of syndesmotic malreduction (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.09; P = 0.06; I² = 0%), and overall postoperative complication rate (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.99; P = 0.05, I² = 75%) and the rate of second procedure was significantly lower with DF (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.43; P = 0.0002, I² = 54%). Compared to SF, DF has an advantage, with a low rate of second procedures to treat DTSI.     

高龄老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折DHS固定与股骨头置换的临床评估

目的比较DHS内固定与股骨头置换术在治疗高龄老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的5项临床指标,评估两种治疗方法的优劣。方法随机抽取2000年6月～2004年12月高龄老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折行DHS内固定(A组)与股骨头置换术(B组)各20例,对手术时间、术中出血量、术后下床锻炼时间、并发症、疗效优良率5项临床指标进行比较。结果5项临床指标显示B组疗效明显优于A组,两组数据经统计学处理有显著性差异(P<0.01)。结论股骨头置换术的疗效明显优于DHS内固定,其可作为临床治疗高龄老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的一种合理的选择。     

骨水泥半髋关节置换治疗老年不稳定性股骨转子间骨折

目的 探讨应用骨水泥半髋关节置换术治疗老年不稳定性股骨转子间骨折的可行性和近期疗效.方法 回顾性分析2009年10月至2012年3月应用骨水泥半髋关节置换术治疗高龄不稳定性股骨转子间骨折21例,其中男9例,女12例;年龄76～91岁,平均81.6岁.骨折分类按Evans-Jensen分型,Ⅱ型4例,Ⅲ型13例,Ⅳ型4例.结果 手术时间40～60 min,平均48 min,出血量260～500mL,平均380mL,术后全部患者切口均一期愈合,住院时间21～35 d,平均28.6d.2例患者术后发生肺部感染,经过抗感染、化痰、雾化吸入等治疗后痊愈.术后全部患者随访12～18个月,平均15.8个月,术后2周患者可借助双拐下床活动,术后2个月,18例患者行走能力基本恢复至伤前水平,生活能自理.末次随访时Harris评分为50～90分,其中优5例,良13例,可3例,优良率85.7％.无一例出现髋臼磨损、假体下沉、感染等相关手术并发症.结论 应用骨水泥半髋关节术治疗高龄不稳定性转子间骨折是一种有效的方法,术后可早期下床活动,提高生活质量.     

高龄股骨粗隆间骨折股骨近端髓内钉内固定和双极人工股骨头置换治疗的比较

目的前瞻性比较股骨近端髓内钉内固定(PFN组)和骨水泥型双极人工股骨头置换(半髋置换组)治疗高龄不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法68例不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折(男36例,女32例;平均年龄78岁)分别接受PFN内固定和骨水泥型双极人工股骨头置换。记录术中和术后与手术或内植物有关的并发症、失血量、输血例数、输血量、手术时间及每个患者的住院时间。并在最后一次随访时进行Harris评分。结果两组间在年龄、性别、及骨质疏松程度上即Singh指数无明显统计学差异。半髋置换组在手术时间、失血量及输血人数上明显多于PFN组(P<0·01)。二者在负重时间上差异不明显。半髋置换组术后平均Harris评分为82分,和PFN组比较无统计学意义。半髋置换组中有2例在术后30d内发生脑血管意外死亡,1例发生了脑梗死,无脱位、假体松动、感染等发生。另有3例3年内死于与髋部置换无关的疾病。PFN组中,术后30d内无死亡发生,有2例3年内死亡。浅部组织感染1例;股骨颈螺钉穿出1例,无骨折不愈合及深静脉血栓形成。结论PFN内固定和骨水泥型双极人工股骨头置换治疗高龄不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折在功能恢复上基本相同,但后者在失血量及手术时间上高于PFN内固定。     

人工假体置换治疗高龄老年人不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折

目的　分析及评价应用人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨粗隆间不稳定骨折的方法及疗效。方法　应用人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨粗隆间不稳定骨折 32例 ,男 8例 ,女 2 4例 ,年龄 74～ 92岁 ,平均 82 3岁。骨折类型Evans分类 :ⅢA :11例 ,ⅢB :8例 ,Ⅳ :7例 ,Ⅱ :6例。结果　 32例 30例进行短期随访 ,平均随访时间 6个月 (2～ 12个月 ) ,无 1例病人因手术并发症死亡。入院至手术时间 2～ 7d ,平均 4 5d。手术时间 5 5～ 16 5min (平均 85min)。术中补血 0～ 12 0 0ml (平均 6 0 0ml)无术中休克或死亡。伤口均一期愈合 ,无 1例感染。住院时间 10～ 2 1d (平均 14d) ,2 6例病人髋关节功能满意。结论　应用人工股骨头置换是治疗老年股骨粗隆间不稳定骨折的有效手段 ,但应严格掌握其适应证目的　分析及评价应用人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨粗隆间不稳定骨折的方法及疗效。方法　应用人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨粗隆间不稳定骨折 32例 ,男 8例 ,女 2 4例 ,年龄 74～ 92岁 ,平均 82 3岁。骨折类型Evans分类 :ⅢA :11例 ,ⅢB :8例 ,Ⅳ :7例 ,Ⅱ :6例。结果　 32例 30例进行短期随访 ,平均随访时间 6个月 (2～ 12个月 ) ,无 1例病人因手术并发症死亡。入院至手术时间 2～ 7d ,平均 4 5d。手术时间 5 5～ 16 5min (平     

The Efficacy of Suture Fixation of the Greater Trochanter in Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures

BackgroudIntertrochanteric fractures are one of the most common fractures in the elderly, especially those having osteoporosis. Stable intertrochanteric fractures may be fixed with implants including the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail antirotation; however, this method is difficult to apply to unstable fractures. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty can be applied to unstable fractures and it prevents complications by facilitating early ambulation in the elderly. Many studies reported on how to fix the greater trochanter in unstable fractures during arthroplasty. We suggest that suture fixation alone can be a useful, effective, and affordable method.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 294 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty for an unstable intertrochanteric fracture, and 225 patients were included in this study after excluding 69 patients who had not been available for follow-up until 1 year after surgery or died. The patients were divided into suture fixation and wiring fixation groups. Relationships of operation time, estimated blood loss, tip-to-stem distance, union rate, and physical performance in the groups of suture fixation and wiring were analyzed respectively.ResultsChanges in the tip-to-stem distance between the initial assessment at 1 year after surgery were statistically significantly different between the suture fixation group and wiring group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in change of the Koval score between the suture fixation and wiring groups (p = 0.362). The operation time and estimated intraoperative blood loss were statistically significantly lower in the suture group than in the wiring group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the union rate between the groups (p = 0.470).ConclusionsCompared to tension-band wiring, the suture fixation technique demonstrated an effective fixing force. In addition to the clinical results, it had an advantage of preventing complications due to shortening of the operation time and estimated intraoperative blood loss. Suture fixation of the greater trochanter is recommended for elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures.     

双爪钢板治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折

目的　探讨双爪钢板治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法　对 70岁以上股骨转子间骨折的高龄患者 ,术前对合并的内科疾病及全身情况进行评估。采用按照股骨大粗隆及股骨上段形态设计的解剖型双爪钢板治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折 38例。结果　经 6个月～ 8年随访 ,按高龄患者特点疗效分为优、良、可、差四等进行评定。髋关节功能优良率达 97 5 %。结论　双爪钢板治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折符合生物力学观点 ,该方法具有创伤小、术中剥离范围小、出血少、手术操作容易、术后并发症少、固定牢固、患髋能够早期功能锻炼等优点 ,尤其适合伴有骨质疏松及骨折端碎裂严重的高龄股骨转子间骨折的治疗     

微创动力髋螺钉内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折

目的 探讨微创动力髋螺钉(DHS)内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效.方法 股骨粗隆间骨折60例,均行DHS内固定,普通组24例,微创组36例.结果 60例均获随访,时间6个月～5年(平均28个月).普通组Harris评分(46.3±19.5)分,微创组Harris评分(45.9±19.2)分,两组之间差异无显著性(P＞0.05).对于透视时间、手术时间,以及住院时间,两组之间存在显著性差异(P＜0.05);骨折愈合时间:普通组(14±2)周,微创组(12±3)周,两组之间无显著性差异(P＜0.05).术中出血量:普通组(500±20)ml,微创组(60±14)ml,两组之间存在显著性差异(P＜0.05).术后6个月内普通组6例出现并发症,微创组1例出现并发症,两组并发症之间存在显著性差异(P＜0.05).结论 微创DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折手术操作简单,创伤小,手术时间短,远期功能恢复满意.     

角钢板内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折

本文报告采用角钢板内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折８７例，无１例死亡。随访６个月～６年，有８３例骨折愈合，其中７４例股骨颈干角恢复正常；有９例颈干角小于对侧，其中有２例小于１２０°。８３例中７６例恢复正常行走，另７例则需借助拐杖或他人搀扶。另４例钢板穿破股骨头进入髋臼，其中２例骨折于内翻位畸形愈合，２例骨折未愈合者经再次手术后基本恢复正常。作者认为对于股骨粗隆间骨折应于复位后采取积极的内固定治疗，而无论应用何种内固定器械，骨折的良好整复以及内固定后骨折稳定性的满意维持将始终是获得手术成功的最重要因素。使包括股骨小粗隆在内的后内侧骨皮质达到满意的整复并予以坚固固定尤为关键，而老年性骨质疏松则是导致内固定手术失败的主要因素之一。     

手术治疗高龄不稳定股骨转子间骨折疗效观察

目的探讨采用骨水泥加长柄人工股骨头置换治疗高龄患者不稳定股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法对24例高龄不稳定股骨转子间骨折患者采用加长柄骨水泥人工股骨头置换治疗。结果 24例获随访,时间8~20个月。术后髋关节功能按Harris评分评定:优良率87.5%(21/24)。患者术后无切口感染、假体脱位及假体松动等并发症。结论骨水泥加长柄人工股骨头置换治疗高龄不稳定股骨转子间骨折,术后早期下床活动及负重功能锻炼,减少术后并发症,促进髋关节功能良好恢复,但应严格掌握适应证。     

老年股骨转子间骨折股骨头置换与内固定的比较与分析

目的 通过临床的一些客观指标,观察与分析比较老年股骨转子间骨折内固定与人工股骨头置换术适应证和效果.方法 2002年3月～2004年11月治疗老年股骨转子间骨折84例.改良Evans-Jensen分型：Ⅰ型骨折30例,Ⅱ型骨折25例,Ⅲ型骨折19例,Ⅳ型骨折7例,V型骨折3例.年龄65～94岁,平均74.6岁.A组：人工股骨头置换术置换21例.B组：内固定63例.结果 术后随访1～51个月,平均11.5个月.A组与B组的年龄、住院时间、术中出血和术中输血等比较有差异.A组：手术创伤大,手术时间短,术后卧床时间短,住院时间短,部分病人需输血,平均年龄稍大.B组：手术创伤小,手术时间长.术中出血少,不需输血,住院时间长,平均年龄小.疗效按生活自理程度分为：生活完全自理54例,部分自理23例,卧床不能自理6例,死亡1例.结论 二种手术方法各有优势,只要根据不同的适应证及术者的经验,人工股骨头置换术也适用于老年股骨转子间骨折的治疗.     

老年股骨粗隆间骨折PFNA固定与人工股骨头置换手术治疗的比较

目的 分析比较PFNA固定与人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效.方法 自2006年3月～2008年9月,对119例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者分别采用PFNA固定62例和人工股骨头置换治疗57例,分析比较手术持续时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生情况和术后髋关节活动功能恢复程度.结果 ①PFNA组手术时间30～95 min,平均(52.34±13.81)min;人工股骨头置换组70～135 min,平均(91.49±15.12)min,两组间比较有显著差异,P<0.05.②PFNA组术中出血100～300 ml,平均(142±45)ml;人工股骨头置换组200～500 ml,平均(319±74)ml,两组间比较有显著差异,P<0.05.③术后并发症发生率两组之间差别无统计学意义,P>0.05.④术后髋关节功能改良Harris评分下降情况,两组间无统计学意义,P>0.05.结论 PFNA固定与人工股骨头置换治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折,均可获得满意的临床疗效.与人工股骨头置换手术比较,PFNA固定具有手术时间短、术中出血量少的优点.     

Autografts vs Synthetics for Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

To describe the outcomes of autografts and synthetics in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction with respect to instrumented laxity measurements, patient‐reported outcome scores, complications, and graft failure risk. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for published randomized controlled trials (RCT) and case controlled trials (CCTs) to compare the outcomes of the autografts versus synthetics after cruciate ligament reconstruction. Data analyses were performed using Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.0. Nine studies were identified from the literature review. Of these studies, three studies compared the results of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) and ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS), while six studies compared the results of four‐strand hamstring tendon graft (4SHG) and LARS. The comparative study showed no difference in Lysholm score and failure risk between autografts and synthetics. The combined results of the meta‐analysis indicated that there was a significantly lower rate of side‐to‐side difference > 3 mm (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.46, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.44–4.22, P = 0.001), overall IKDC (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19–0.83, P = 0.01), complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.26–5.14, P = 0.009), and Tegner score (OR ?0.31, 95% CI ?0.52–0.10, P = 0.004) in the synthetics group than in the autografts group. This systematic review comparing long‐term outcomes after cruciate ligament reconstruction with either autograft or synthetics suggests no significant differences in failure risk. Autografts were inferior to synthetics with respect to restoring knee joint stability and patient‐reported outcome scores, and were also associated with more postoperative complications.     

The Comparison between Cemented and Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Hemiarthroplasty is the standard treatment for patients with femoral neck fractures (FNFs). Controversy exists over the use of bone cement in hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty.

Objective

We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures.

Methods

A literature review was conducted using Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, Wang Fang, and Sino Med databases. Studies comparing cemented with uncemented hemiarthroplasty for FNFs in elderly patients up to June 2022 were included. Data were extracted, meta-analyzed, and pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results

Twenty-four RCTs involving 3471 patients (1749 cement; 1722 uncemented) were analyzed. Patients with cemented intervention had better outcomes regarding hip function, pain, and complications. Significant differences were found in terms of HHS at 6 weeks (WMD 12.5; 95% CI 6.0–17.0; P < 0.001), 3 months (WMD 3.3; 95% CI 1.6–5.0; P < 0.001), 4 months (WMD 7.3; 95% CI 3.4–11.2; P < 0.001), and 6 months (WMD 4.6; 95% CI 3.3–5.8; P < 0.001) postoperatively. Patients with cemented hemiarthroplasty had lower rates of pain (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39–0.9; P = 0.013), prosthetic fracture (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.16–0.38; P < 0.001), subsidence/loosening (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.11–0.78; P = 0.014), revisions (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.40–0.89; P = 0.012), and pressure ulcers (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23–0.82; P = 0.01) at the expense of longer surgery time (WMD 7.87; 95% CI 5.71–10.02; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with cemented hemiarthroplasty had better results in hip function and pain relief and lower complication rates at the expense of prolonged surgery time. Cemented hemiarthroplasty is recommended based on our findings.     

四种内固定治疗不稳定股骨转子间骨折的生物力学研究

３０具新鲜股骨标本做成ＥｖａｎｓⅣ型转子间骨折后随机分为Ｇａｍｍａ钉、长柄Ｇａｍｍａ钉、ＡＯ角钢板、Ｒｉｃｈａｒｄｓ钉固定和正常对照共５组，实验模型每组６具标本，模拟单足站立相，进行２００Ｎ～１６００Ｎ加载，对位移和骨折远端的电应变进行测量。结果发现正常标本置入各种内固定后，股骨应变均有变化；模拟不稳定骨折后，小转子的应变以Ｒｉｃｈａｒｄｓ钉最大，其它三组均明显减小，产生应力遮挡；Ｇａｍｍａ钉组钉棒末端出现超过正常值近一倍的压应变，而长柄Ｇａｍｍａ钉组却无应力集中。对比实验说明：对于不稳定型转子间骨折，髓腔内固定较其它方法好，更符合生物力学要求。Ｇａｍｍａ钉远端的应力集中，可以通过延长其柄部至股骨髁使应力分散，以减少因应力集中引起的术后并发症。     

30-Day Mortality Rate in Hip Fractures Among the Elderly with Coexistent COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review

PurposeHip fractures in the elderly require a multi-disciplinary approach and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The current COVID-19 pandemic has affected substantially this high-risk population group. This present review was done to ascertain whether or not the pandemic has affected the 30-day mortality and outcomes of hip fracture in the elderly.Research QuestionDoes the coexistence of COVID-19 infection and hip fractures in the elderly increase the mortality rates?MethodologyA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using three databases (PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS) to compare the mortality rates between COVID-19 positive/suspect and COVID-19 negative patients. The secondary outcomes included comparison of in-hospital mortality, complication rate and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias assessment was done using the MINORS tool.ResultsThe present review included 20 studies. Primary outcome: A significantly higher 30 day mortality rate was seen in COVID-19 positive/suspect patients with an Odds ratio of 6.09 (95% CI 4.75–8.59, p < 0.00001). Secondary outcome: We observed significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality [OR 18.22, (95% CI 7.10–46.75], complication rate (OR 9.28, 95% CI 4.46–19.30), and length of hospital stay (MD: 4.96, 95% CI 2.86–7.05) in COVID-19 positive/suspect patients as compared to COVID-19 negative patients.ConclusionCOVID-19 has deteriorated the outcomes in elderly patients with hip fractures and associated with higher rates of mortality in the short term. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to contain this “pandemic within a pandemic” and improve the overall outcome to survival.