Introduction: The management of both hip and distal femur fractures as well as periprosthetic fractures can be challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. The use of megaprosthetic implants could provide substantial advantages in elderly population affected by complex fractures. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of megaprosthetic implants for treating hip and distal femur fractures as well as periprosthetic fractures in elderly. Material and Methods: From January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2019, patients treated for proximal or distal femoral fractures with severe bone loss or failure of previous surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two group based on diagnosis: proximal femur fractures (group A) and distal femur fractures (group B). Subsequently, patients underwent hip (group A) or knee (group B) megaprosthesis. Self-assessed questionnaires were administered to all patients pre and postoperatively. Primary outcome was the Activity Daily Living. Secondary outcomes were: Instrumental Activity Daily Living, Short Form-12, Oxford knee or hip score, complications. Charlson score, Harris classification for hip or Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute score and complication were recorded. All patients underwent a radiological follow up to rule out implant loosening and mobilization. Pre and postoperative functional score comparisons in each group were undertaken. Significance was set p ≤ 0.05. Results: Twelve patients were finally included in the study. There were 6 male and 6 females, the mean age was 72,9 years old (± 7,4); the mean BMI was 29,8 points (± 4.5). The mean follow-up was 2.9 years (± 1.4). No differences could be found between pre and postoperative evaluation in each group. No aseptic loosening, dislocation, mobilization or radiolucency were recorded during the follow-up. In group A, two surgical site infections (2/6 patients) and one pneumonia (1/6 patients) were recorded. In group B, two surgical site infections occurred (2/6 patients). All patients were treated by antimicrobial oral therapy with complete regression. Conclusion: The use of hip and knee megaprosthetic implants in traumatology is a safe and viable option in elderly patients.

The value of megaprostheses in non-oncological fractures in elderly patients: A short-term results

Saccomanno M. F.
2022-01-01

Abstract

Introduction: The management of both hip and distal femur fractures as well as periprosthetic fractures can be challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. The use of megaprosthetic implants could provide substantial advantages in elderly population affected by complex fractures. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of megaprosthetic implants for treating hip and distal femur fractures as well as periprosthetic fractures in elderly. Material and Methods: From January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2019, patients treated for proximal or distal femoral fractures with severe bone loss or failure of previous surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two group based on diagnosis: proximal femur fractures (group A) and distal femur fractures (group B). Subsequently, patients underwent hip (group A) or knee (group B) megaprosthesis. Self-assessed questionnaires were administered to all patients pre and postoperatively. Primary outcome was the Activity Daily Living. Secondary outcomes were: Instrumental Activity Daily Living, Short Form-12, Oxford knee or hip score, complications. Charlson score, Harris classification for hip or Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute score and complication were recorded. All patients underwent a radiological follow up to rule out implant loosening and mobilization. Pre and postoperative functional score comparisons in each group were undertaken. Significance was set p ≤ 0.05. Results: Twelve patients were finally included in the study. There were 6 male and 6 females, the mean age was 72,9 years old (± 7,4); the mean BMI was 29,8 points (± 4.5). The mean follow-up was 2.9 years (± 1.4). No differences could be found between pre and postoperative evaluation in each group. No aseptic loosening, dislocation, mobilization or radiolucency were recorded during the follow-up. In group A, two surgical site infections (2/6 patients) and one pneumonia (1/6 patients) were recorded. In group B, two surgical site infections occurred (2/6 patients). All patients were treated by antimicrobial oral therapy with complete regression. Conclusion: The use of hip and knee megaprosthetic implants in traumatology is a safe and viable option in elderly patients.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0020138321008007-main.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Licenza: PUBBLICO - Pubblico con Copyright
Dimensione 558.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
558.14 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11379/571769
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact