USMF logo

Institutional Repository in Medical Sciences
of Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy
of the Republic of Moldova
(IRMS – Nicolae Testemitanu SUMPh)

Biblioteca Stiintifica Medicala
DSpace

University homepage  |  Library homepage

 
 
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12710/12436
Title: Management of the hip periprosthetic fractures
Authors: Croitor, Gheorghe
Bețișor, Alexandru
Mihăilescu, Dan
Botez, Paul
Keywords: periprosthetic fractures;Vancouver classification;revision hip arthroplasty
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: Asociaţia chirurgilor “Nicolae Anestiadi” din Republica Moldova
Citation: CROITOR, Gheorghe, BEȚIȘOR, Alexandru, MIHĂILESCU, Dan, BOTEZ, Paul. Management of the hip periprosthetic fractures. In: Arta Medica. 2016, nr. 4(61), pp. 13-14. ISSN 1810-1852.
Abstract: The purpose of the study: The analysis of the treatment methods in periprosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty, with correlation between the experience of the authors and literature data. Methods: During the years 2010-2014 in our clinic were performed 67 revision surgical procedures of periprosthetic fractures after the hip replacements. Of these 25 were males and 42 were females; the mean cohort age was 64 year, ranging from 54 ap to 79 years. Elapsed time from the primary arthroplasty up to the revision of the periprosthetic fractures varied from 2 months up to the 13 years. Cases were staggered according to Vancouver classification. We have encountered fractures of type AG in 4 cases, type AL - 3 cases, type B1 – 12 cases, type B2 – 14 cases, type B3 – 7 cases, type C – 27 cases. Fractures of the type A have been treated with simple wire fixation (4 cases) tension band wiring (3 cases). Fractures of the type B1 were treated by the plate osteosynthesis; type B2 and B3 – by revision arthroplasty. In fractures type C we performed the osteosyntesis by the plates with angular stability in 15 cases or regular plates with association of the bone grafts in 12 cases. Results: In fractures of the type A we found one case of osteosyntesis instability, which was well tolerated by the patient. Fractures of the type B represent one of the biggest problems. Especially type B1 and B2, when was difficult to differentiate if the stem was stable or not. In 3 cases we did mistakes in appreciation of the type B1 and performed the osteosyntesis. In all these cases occured the instability of the stem, that led to the revision arthroplasty procedure. In cases of the fractures type C we met the problem of the associated osteoporosis. This led to technical difficulties in achieving stable osteosynthesis by regular plates. Conclusions: The results confirm that correct classification, compliance with treatment protocols of the hip periprosthetic fractures and strict differencition between different types of the fractures can lead to good functional result.
URI: https://artamedica.md/old_issues/ArtaMedica_61.pdf
http://repository.usmf.md/handle/20.500.12710/12436
ISSN: 1810-1852
Appears in Collections:Arta Medica Vol. 61, No 4, 2016 ediție specială

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Management_of_the_hip_periprosthetic_fractures.pdf248.16 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2013  Duraspace - Feedback