This study compared the quality of reduction and complication rate when using a standard ilioinguinal approach and the new pararectus approach when treating acetabular fractures surgically. All acetabular fractures that underwent fixation using either approach between February 2005 and September 2014 were retrospectively reviewed and the demographics of the patients, the surgical details and complications were recorded. A total of 100 patients (69 men, 31 women; mean age 57 years, 18 to 93) who were consecutively treated were included for analysis. The quality of reduction was assessed using standardised measurement of the gaps and steps in the articular surface on pre- and post-operative CT-scans. There were no significant differences in the demographics of the patients, the surgical details or the complications between the two approaches. A significantly better reduction of the gap, however, was achieved with the pararectus approach (axial: p = 0.025, coronal: p = 0.013, sagittal: p = 0.001). These data suggest that the pararectus approach is at least equal to, or in the case of reduction of the articular gap, superior to the ilioinguinal approach. This approach allows direct buttressing of the dome of the acetabulum and the quadrilateral plate, which is particularly favourable in geriatric fracture patterns.
Background: The fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) classification was established to address the specific fracture morphology and dynamic instability in the elderly. Although this system is frequently used, data on the intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities are lacking. Methods: Six experienced and 6 inexperienced surgeons and 1 surgeon trained by the originator of the FFP classification (“gold standard”) each used the FFP classification 3 times to grade the computed tomography (CT) scans of 60 patients from 6 hospitals. We assessed intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities using Fleiss kappa statistics and the percentage of agreement using the “gold standard,” the submitting hospital, and the majority vote as references. Results: The intra-rater reliability for the FFP classification was mainly moderate, with a mean Fleiss kappa coefficient (and 95% confidence interval) of 0.46 (0.40 to 0.50) for the complete classification (i.e., both the main-group FFP ratings [I through III] and the subgroup ratings [a, b, and c]) and 0.60 (0.53 to 0.65) for the main group only. The inter-rater reliability was substantial for the main group classification (0.61 [0.54 to 0.66]) and moderate for the complete classification (0.53 [0.48 to 0.58]). The percentage of agreement was 68% to 80%. The lowest agreement was found for FFP II and III. Conclusions: The FFP classification displayed moderate and substantial intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities. Clinical Relevance: With moderate to substantial intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities, the FFP classification forms a solid basis for future clinical investigations. The differentiation of FFP II from FFP III should be evaluated thoroughly, as the initial treatment changes from nonoperative for II to operative for III.
Introduction: The risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in mega-prosthesis for malignancy is increased compared with non-tumor cases. While several studies describe PJI in tumor-related arthroplasty, prospective studies comparing infection characteristics among different joints are limited. The present study analyzes mega-arthroplasty for hip, knee, and shoulder malignancy and compares the epidemiology, diagnosis, microbe spectrum, treatments, and outcomes between the different entities. Methods: The retrospective inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) mega-arthroplasty (2) in the hip, knee, or shoulder joint and a total femur arthroplasty (3) following a malignant bone tumor or metastasis (4) between 1996 and 2019. All included patients were prospectively followed and invited for a renewed hospital examination, and their PJI characteristics (if identified) were analyzed using both retrospective as well as newly gained prospective data. A PJI was defined according to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and re-infection was defined according to the modified Delphi Consensus criteria. Results: In total, 83 cases of tumor mega-arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 3.9 years could be included (32 knee, 30 hip, and 19 shoulder cases and 2 cases of total femur arthroplasty). In total, 14 PJIs were identified, with chondrosarcoma in 6 and osteosarcoma in 3 being the leading tumor entities. Knee arthroplasty demonstrated a significantly higher rate of PJI (p = 0.027) compared with hips (28.1% vs. 6.7%), while no significant difference could be found between the knee and shoulder (10.5%) (p = 0.134) or among shoulder and hip cases (p = 0.631). The average time of PJI following primary implantation was 141.4 months in knee patients, 64.6 in hip patients, and 8.2 months in shoulder patients. Age at the time of the primary PJI, as well as the time of the first PJI, did not show significant differences among the groups. Thirteen of the fourteen patients with PJI had a primary bone tumor. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the disadvantage of primary bone tumors (p = 0.11). While the overall cancer-related mortality in the knee PJI group (10%) was low, it was 50% in the hip and 100% in the shoulder group. Conclusion: The risk of PJI in knee tumor arthroplasty is significantly increased compared with hips, while cancer-related mortality is significantly higher in hip PJI cases. At the same time, mega-prostheses appear to be associated with a higher risk of infection due to a primary bone tumor compared with metastases. The study confirms existing knowledge concerning PJI in tumor arthroplasty, while, being one of the few studies to compare three different joints concerning PJI characteristics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.