Mortality and Revision Surgery Are Increased in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease and Fractures of the Femoral Neck

Background

Patients with Parkinson’s disease are at increased risk for falls and associated hip fractures as a result of tremor, bradykinesia, rigidity, and postural instability. The available literature is limited and conflicting regarding the optimal surgical treatment and risk for postoperative complications and mortality in this unique patient population.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) Is there a difference in mortality after surgical treatment of hip fractures in patients with Parkinson’s disease compared with similar patients with hip fractures without Parkinson’s disease? (2) Does Parkinson’s disease lead to a higher rate of reoperation after operative treatment of femoral neck fractures? (3) Does Parkinson’s disease lead to a higher rate of dislocation after hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures, and (4) does the operative approach affect dislocation rates?

Methods

In this case-controlled study, we retrospectively reviewed 141 patients with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease and a fracture of the femoral neck. Each patient with Parkinson’s disease was matched with two control patients (n = 282) without Parkinson’s disease stratified by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and fracture type (nondisplaced/displaced). Clinical outcomes included mortality after surgical intervention, rate of reoperation, dislocation events after hemiarthroplasty, and the rate of failure after internal fixation for nondisplaced fractures.

Results

The median survival time of the patients with Parkinson’s disease after fracture was 31 months (95% CI, 25–37 months) compared with 45 months (95% CI, 39–50 months) in our control group (p = 0.007). The rate of reoperation for displaced and nondisplaced fractures was higher in the Parkinson’s disease group compared with the control group (11% versus 4%; p = 0.005). Failure of fixation for patients treated with internal fixation of nondisplaced femoral neck fractures was significantly higher in the Parkinson’s disease group compared with our control group (22% versus 5%; p = 0.01). Dislocation rates after hemiarthroplasty were significantly higher in the Parkinson’s disease group compared with the control group (8% versus 1%; p = 0.003). Patients treated with a hemiarthroplasty through an anterolateral approach had a significantly lower dislocation rate compared with those treated with a posterior approach (2% versus 15%; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Parkinson’s disease is an independent predictor of mortality after femoral neck fracture and is associated with an increased rate of dislocation, revision surgery, and failure of internal fixation. Although patients with Parkinson’s disease with a nondisplaced or valgus impacted femoral neck fracture may be treated with internal fixation, they are at significantly higher risk of failure of fixation compared with patients without Parkinson’s disease. Use of a hemiarthroplasty through an anterolateral approach may reduce the likelihood of requiring a revision operation.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

What Are the Risk Factors and Complications Associated With Intraoperative and Postoperative Fractures in Total Wrist Arthroplasty?

Background

Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) can relieve pain and preserve some wrist motion in patients with advanced wrist arthritis. However, few studies have evaluated the risks and outcomes associated with periprosthetic fractures around TWAs.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the risk of intraoperative and postoperative fractures after TWAs? (2) What factors are associated with increased risk of intraoperative and postoperative fracture after TWAs? (3) What is the fracture-free and revision-free survivorship of TWAs among patients who sustained an intraoperative fracture during the index TWA?

Methods

At one institution during a 40-year period, 445 patients underwent primary TWAs. Of those, 15 patients died before 2 years and 5 were lost to followup, leaving 425 patients who underwent primary TWAs with a minimum of 2-year followup. The primary diagnosis for the TWA included osteoarthritis ([OA] 5%), inflammatory arthritis (90%), and posttraumatic arthritis (5%). Indications for TWA included pancarpal arthritis combined with marked pain and loss of wrist function. The mean age of the patients was 57 years, BMI was 26 kg/m², and 73% were females. Six different implants were used during the 40-year period. Mean followup was 10 years (range, 2–18 years).

Results

Intraoperative fractures occurred in nine (2%) primary TWAs, while postoperative fractures occurred after eight (2%) TWAs. After analyzing demographics, comorbidities, and surgical factors, intraoperative fractures were found to be associated with only age at surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.20; p = 0.006) and use of a bone graft (HR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.18–23.08; p = 0.03). No factors were found to be associated with increased risk of postoperative fractures; specifically, intraoperative fracture was not associated with subsequent fracture development. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year Kaplan–Meier survival rates free of postoperative fracture were 99%, 98%, and 95%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year revision-free survival rates after intraoperative fracture were 88% and 88%, respectively, compared with 84% and 74% without an intraoperative fracture (p = 0.36). Furthermore, the survival-free of revision surgery rates for aseptic distal loosening at 5 and 10 years were 88% and 88%, respectively, compared with 93% and 87% without a fracture (p = 0.85).

Conclusions

Intraoperative fractures occur in approximately 2% of TWAs. These fractures do not appear to affect long-term implant survival or risk of fracture. Patient age and the need for bone graft were the only factors in the risk of intraoperative fractures. Postoperative fractures also occur in 2% of TWAs, but often result in revision surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

     

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis? Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

Background

Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis^® Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant?

Methods

At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis^® expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6–11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78–140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system.

Results

Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%–87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%–97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17–67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis—eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock.

Conclusions

We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis^® prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.     

What Factors Are Associated With Femoral Component Internal Rotation in TKA Using the Gap Balancing Technique?

Background

When using the gap-balancing technique for TKA, excessive medial release and varus proximal tibial resection can be associated with internal rotation of the femoral component. Previous studies have evaluated the causes of femoral component rotational alignment with a separate factor analysis using unadjusted statistical methods, which might result in treatment effects being attributed to confounding variables.

Questions/purposes

(1) What pre- and intraoperative factors are associated with internal rotation of the femoral component in TKA using the gap balancing technique? (2) To what degree does femoral component rotation as defined by the navigation system differ from rotation as measured by postoperative CT?

Methods

Three hundred seventy-seven knees that underwent computer-assisted primary TKA attributable to degenerative osteoarthritis with varus or mild valgus alignment in which medial soft tissue release was performed, and those with preoperative radiographs including preoperative CT between October 2007 and June 2014 were included in the study. To achieve a balanced mediolateral gap, the structures released during each medial release step were as follows: Step 1, deep medial collateral ligament (MCL); Step 2, superficial MCL (proximal, above the pes anserine tendon) and semimembranosus tendon; and Step 3, the superficial MCL (distal, below the pes anserine tendon). Knees with internal rotation of the femoral component, which was directed by navigation, to achieve a rectangular mediolateral flexion gap were considered cases, and knees without internally rotated femoral components were considered controls. Univariable analysis of the variables (age, sex, BMI, operated side, preoperative hip-knee-ankle angle, preoperative medial proximal tibial angle, preoperative rotation degree of the clinical transepicondylar axis [TEA] relative to the posterior condylar axis [PCA], coronal angle of resected tibia, resection of the posterior cruciate ligament, type of prosthesis, and extent of medial release) of cases and controls was performed, followed by a multivariable logistic regression analysis on those factors where p equals 0.15 or less. For an evaluation of navigation error, 88 knees that underwent postoperative CT were analyzed. Postoperative CT scans were obtained for patients with unexplained pain or stiffness after the operations. Using the paired t-test and Pearson’s correlation analysis, the postoperative TEA–PCA measured with postoperative CT was compared with theoretical TEA–PCA, which was calculated with preoperative TEA–PCA and actual femoral component rotation checked by the navigation system.

Results

After controlling for a relevant confounding variable such as postoperative hip-knee-ankle angle, we found that the extent of medial release (Step 1 as reference; Step 2: odds ratio [OR], 5.7, [95% CI, 2.2–15]; Step 3: OR, 22, [95% CI, 7.8–62], p < 0.001) was the only factor we identified that was associated with internal rotation of the femoral component. With the numbers available, we found no difference between the mean theoretical postoperative TEA–PCA and the postoperative TEA–PCA measured using postoperative CT (4.8° ± 2.7º versus 5.0° ± 2.3º; mean difference, 0.2° ± 1.5º; p = 0.160).

Conclusions

Extent of medial release was the only factor we identified that was associated with internal rotation of the femoral component in gap-balancing TKA. To avoid internal rotation of the femoral component, we recommend a carefully subdivided medial-releasing technique, especially for the superficial MCL because once the superficial MCL has been completely released it cannot easily be restored.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

     

What Are the Interobserver and Intraobserver Variability of Gap and Stepoff Measurements in Acetabular Fractures?

BackgroundGap and stepoff values in the treatment of acetabular fractures are correlated with clinical outcomes. However, the interobserver and intraobserver variability of gap and stepoff measurements for all imaging modalities in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phase of treatment is unknown. Recently, a standardized CT-based measurement method was introduced, which provided the opportunity to assess the level of variability.Questions/purposes(1) In patients with acetabular fractures, what is the interobserver variability in the measurement of the fracture gaps and articular stepoffs determined by each observer to be the maximum one in the weightbearing dome, as measured on pre- and postoperative pelvic radiographs, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and pre- and postoperative CT scans? (2) What is the intraobserver variability in these measurements?MethodsSixty patients with a complete subset of pre-, intra- and postoperative high-quality images (CT slices of < 2 mm), representing a variety of fracture types with small and large gaps and/or stepoffs, were included. A total of 196 patients with nonoperative treatment (n = 117), inadequate available imaging (n = 60), skeletal immaturity (n = 16), bilateral fractures (n = 2) or a primary THA (n = 1) were excluded. The maximum gap and stepoff values in the weightbearing dome were digitally measured on pelvic radiographs and CT images by five independent observers. Observers were free to decide which gap and/or stepoff they considered the maximum and then measure these before and after surgery. The observers were two trauma surgeons with more than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, two trauma surgeons with less than 5 years of experience in pelvic surgery, and one surgical resident. Additionally, the final intraoperative fluoroscopy images were assessed for the presence of a gap or stepoff in the weightbearing dome. All observers used the same standardized measurement technique and each observer measured the first five patients together with the responsible researcher. For 10 randomly selected patients, all measurements were repeated by all observers, at least 2 weeks after the initial measurements. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for pelvic radiographs and CT images and the kappa value for intraoperative fluoroscopy measurements were calculated to determine the inter- and intraobserver variability. Interobserver variability was defined as the difference in the measurements between observers. Intraobserver variability was defined as the difference in repeated measurements by the same observer.ResultsPreoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap and stepoff) on radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff) on CT images. The observers agreed on the indication for surgery in 40% (gap) and 30% (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. For CT scans the observers agreed in 95% (gap) and 70% (stepoff) of images. Postoperatively, the interobserver ICC was 0.4 (gap) and 0.2 (stepoff) on radiographs. The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable or not in 60% (gap) and 40% (stepoff). On CT images the ICC was 0.3 (gap) and 0.4 (stepoff). The observers agreed on whether the reduction was acceptable in 35% (gap) and 38% (stepoff). The preoperative intraobserver ICC was 0.6 (gap and stepoff) on pelvic radiographs and 0.4 (gap) and 0.6 (stepoff) for CT scans. Postoperatively, the intraobserver ICC was 0.7 (gap) and 0.1 (stepoff) on pelvic radiographs. On CT the intraobserver ICC was 0.5 (gap) and 0.3 (stepoff). There was no agreement between the observers on the presence of a gap or stepoff on intraoperative fluoroscopy images (kappa -0.1 to 0.2).ConclusionsWe found an insufficient interobserver and intraobserver agreement on measuring gaps and stepoffs for supporting clinical decisions in acetabular fracture surgery. If observers cannot agree on the size of the gap and stepoff, it will be challenging to decide when to perform surgery and study the results of acetabular fracture surgery.Level of EvidenceLevel III, diagnostic study.     

What Are the Patterns of Injury and Displacement Seen in Lateral Compression Pelvic Fractures?

Background  

Lateral compression (LC)-type pelvic fractures encompass a wide spectrum of injuries. Current classification systems are poorly suited to help guide treatment and do not adequately describe the wide range of injuries seen in clinical practice.     

Concomitant Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Are Results Associated With Surgeon's Experience?

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has become an effective concomitant procedure, which is increasingly used. We questioned whether results are related to surgeon's experience. METHODS: Patients (n = 141) with persistent AF (pAF) underwent concomitant left atrial (LA) endocardial ablation, performed by six surgeons. Follow-up (FU) was after 3, 6, and 12 months (mean 8 +/- 4.1 months). FU was 97% complete. Results were analyzed according to surgeon's volume: >20 (group A, n = 85) and 相似文献