Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 7 of 7
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 9 | Pages 659 - 667
1 Sep 2023
Nasser AAHH Osman K Chauhan GS Prakash R Handford C Nandra RS Mahmood A

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) following hip arthroplasty are complex injuries. This study evaluates patient demographic characteristics, management, outcomes, and risk factors associated with PPF subtypes over a decade.

Methods

Using a multicentre collaborative study design, independent of registry data, we identified adults from 29 centres with PPFs around the hip between January 2010 and December 2019. Radiographs were assessed for the Unified Classification System (UCS) grade. Patient and injury characteristics, management, and outcomes were compared between UCS grades. A multinomial logistic regression was performed to estimate relative risk ratios (RRR) of variables on UCS grade.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 6 | Pages 452 - 456
1 Jun 2024
Kennedy JW Rooney EJ Ryan PJ Siva S Kennedy MJ Wheelwright B Young D Meek RMD

Aims

Femoral periprosthetic fractures are rising in incidence. Their management is complex and carries a high associated mortality. Unlike native hip fractures, there are no guidelines advising on time to theatre in this group. We aim to determine whether delaying surgical intervention influences morbidity or mortality in femoral periprosthetic fractures.

Methods

We identified all periprosthetic fractures around a hip or knee arthroplasty from our prospectively collated database between 2012 and 2021. Patients were categorized into early or delayed intervention based on time from admission to surgery (early = ≤ 36 hours, delayed > 36 hours). Patient demographics, existing implants, Unified Classification System fracture subtype, acute medical issues on admission, preoperative haemoglobin, blood transfusion requirement, and length of hospital stay were identified for all patients. Complication and mortality rates were compared between groups.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 6 | Pages 766 - 771
1 Jun 2020
Coughlin TA Nightingale JM Myint Y Forward DP Norrish AR Ollivere BJ

Aims

Hip fractures in patients < 60 years old currently account for only 3% to 4% of all hip fractures in England, but this proportion is increasing. Little is known about the longer-term patient-reported outcomes in this potentially more active population. The primary aim is to examine patient-reported outcomes following isolated hip fracture in patients aged < 60 years. The secondary aim is to determine an association between outcomes and different types of fracture pattern and/or treatment implants.

Methods

All hip fracture patients aged 18 to 60 years admitted to a single centre over a 15-year period were used to identify the study group. Fracture pattern (undisplaced intracapsular, displaced intracapsular, and extracapsular) and type of operation (multiple cannulated hip screws, angular stable fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and total hip replacement) were recorded. The primary outcome measures were the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and EQ-visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Preinjury scores were recorded by patient recall and postinjury scores were collected at a mean of 57 months (9 to 118) postinjury. Ethics approval was obtained prior to study commencement.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 2 | Pages 162 - 169
1 Feb 2020
Hoellwarth JS Tetsworth K Kendrew J Kang NV van Waes O Al-Maawi Q Roberts C Al Muderis M

Aims

Osseointegrated prosthetic limbs allow better mobility than socket-mounted prosthetics for lower limb amputees. Fractures, however, can occur in the residual limb, but they have rarely been reported. Approximately 2% to 3% of amputees with socket-mounted prostheses may fracture within five years. This is the first study which directly addresses the risks and management of periprosthetic osseointegration fractures in amputees.

Methods

A retrospective review identified 518 osseointegration procedures which were undertaken in 458 patients between 2010 and 2018 for whom complete medical records were available. Potential risk factors including time since amputation, age at osseointegration, bone density, weight, uni/bilateral implantation and sex were evaluated with multiple logistic regression. The mechanism of injury, technique and implant that was used for fixation of the fracture, pre-osseointegration and post fracture mobility (assessed using the K-level) and the time that the prosthesis was worn for in hours/day were also assessed.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1285 - 1291
1 Oct 2019
MacKenzie SA Ng RT Snowden G Powell-Bowns MFR Duckworth AD Scott CEH

Aims

Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective case control study of consecutive patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures between 2007 and 2017. Two observers identified 16 PAFF cases (mean age 73.9 years (44 to 88), 14 female patients) and 17 typical periprosthetic fractures in patients on bisphosphonate therapy as controls (mean age 80.7 years (60 to 86, 13 female patients). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of PAFF. Management and complications were recorded.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 90-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1073 - 1078
1 Aug 2008
Little NJ Verma V Fernando C Elliott DS Khaleel A

We compared the outcome of patients treated for an intertrochanteric fracture of the femoral neck with a locked, long intramedullary nail with those treated with a dynamic hip screw (DHS) in a prospective randomised study.

Each patient who presented with an extra-capsular hip fracture was randomised to operative stabilisation with either a long intramedullary Holland nail or a DHS. We treated 92 patients with a Holland nail and 98 with a DHS. Pre-operative variables included the Mini Mental test score, patient mobility, fracture pattern and American Society of Anesthesiologists grading. Peri-operative variables were anaesthetic time, operating time, radiation time and blood loss. Post-operative variables were time to mobilising with a frame, wound infection, time to discharge, time to fracture union, and mortality.

We found no significant difference in the pre-operative variables. The mean anaesthetic and operation times were shorter in the DHS group than in the Holland nail group (29.7 vs 40.4 minutes, p < 0.001; and 40.3 vs 54 minutes, p < 0.001, respectively). There was an increased mean blood loss within the DHS group versus the Holland nail group (160 ml vs 78 ml, respectively, p < 0.001). The mean time to mobilisation with a frame was shorter in the Holland nail group (DHS 4.3 days, Holland nail 3.6 days, p = 0.012). More patients needed a post-operative blood transfusion in the DHS group (23 vs seven, p = 0.003) and the mean radiation time was shorter in this group (DHS 0.9 minutes vs Holland nail 1.56 minutes, p < 0.001). The screw of the DHS cut out in two patients, one of whom underwent revision to a Holland nail. There were no revisions in the Holland nail group. All fractures in both groups were united when followed up after one year.

We conclude that the DHS can be implanted more quickly and with less exposure to radiation than the Holland nail. However, the resultant blood loss and need for transfusion is greater. The Holland nail allows patients to mobilise faster and to a greater extent. We have therefore adopted the Holland nail as our preferred method of treating intertrochanteric fractures of the hip.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 87-B, Issue 5 | Pages 692 - 697
1 May 2005
Topliss CJ Jackson M Atkins RM

In a series of 126 consecutive pilon fractures, we have described anatomically explicable fragments. Fracture lines describing these fragments have revealed ten types of pilon fracture which belong to two families, sagittal and coronal. The type of fracture is dictated by the energy of injury, the direction of the force of injury and the age of the patient.