Back to Search
Start Over
Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture.
- Source :
-
European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie [Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol] 2024 Jul; Vol. 34 (5), pp. 2573-2580. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 02. - Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- Purpose: According to Vancouver classification, B2 type fractures are most often treated with removal of the loose stem and implantation of a long stem that bypasses the fracture site. However, there is a controversy about the stem fixation that should be used: cemented or cementless. Hence, this study aims to compare cemented and cementless stems in prosthetic revision due to Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fracture.<br />Methods: A retrospective study was done including all the patients treated with stem exchange due to VB2 periprosthetic hip fracture in a tertiary hospital between 2015 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to the stem fixation used: cemented or cementless. Functional outcomes, hospital stay, surgical time, complication rate, and mortality were compared between the two groups of patients.<br />Results: Of the 30 included patients, 13 (43.4%) were treated with cementless stems and 17 (56.7%) with cemented stems. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, anesthesia risk scale (ASA) or functional capacity prior to the intervention. Patients treated with cementless stems had a higher complication and reintervention rate than those treated with cemented stems: 62 and 45% versus 34 and 6% (p = 0.035; p = 0.010), respectively. Furthermore, in the group of cementless stems a higher proportion of non-union was found (53.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.037). Also, the hospital stay (33 vs. 24 days; p = 0.037) and the time to full weight-bearing (21 days vs. 9 days; p < 0.001) were longer in the cementless stem group.<br />Conclusion: Cemented fixation in stem revision due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture could be an optimal option with faster recovery which could decrease the rate of complications and reintervention, without compromising the fracture healing and patient mortality. Thus, this option can be considered when an anatomical reduction can be obtained, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities in which a less aggressive surgical option should be considered.<br /> (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.)
- Subjects :
- Humans
Male
Female
Retrospective Studies
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Length of Stay statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications surgery
Postoperative Complications etiology
Operative Time
Prosthesis Failure
Prosthesis Design
Cementation
Reoperation
Periprosthetic Fractures surgery
Periprosthetic Fractures etiology
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip methods
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip adverse effects
Bone Cements therapeutic use
Hip Fractures surgery
Hip Prosthesis adverse effects
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1432-1068
- Volume :
- 34
- Issue :
- 5
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 38695885
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-03961-3