The Use of Standard Cemented Femoral Stems in Total Hip Replacement After Failed Internal Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures

Morsi, Elsayed; Drwish, Amr Eid E.; Saber, Amr; Nassar, Islam; Zaki, Ahmed E.M.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.04.021

Cited by 12 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Standard straight, polished, collarless, cemented stems were used in all 107 cases. At an average follow-up of 7.4 years, they report 99% implant survivorship, a Harris Hip Score of 89.3 (range 71–95) and only a very small number of surgical complications [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The majority of conversion total hip arthroplasties can be considered a primary replacement: a matched cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims The success of conversion total hip arthroplasty (THA) among primary THA and revision THA remains unclear. We hypothesized that most conversion THA’s can be performed using primary implants and will have an uncomplicated post-operative course. Materials and methods Thirty-six patients (23 females, mean age 68,0y) who underwent conversion THA for failed interventions for proximal femur fractures in the period 2008–2018 were matched sequentially against patients of the same sex and age who underwent primary THA or revision THA. Data were collected on implants used, major complications, and mortality. PROMs used included the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, Harris Hip Score, Visual Analogue Scale and the EQ-5D Health Questionnaire. Results Seventy-two percent of patients who underwent conversion THA were treated with primary implants and never suffered from a major complication. PROMs were excellent for this group of patients. The distinction primary/conversion/revision THA could not explain differences in outcomes; however, the necessity of using revision implants and the development of major complications could. Conclusions The majority of conversion total hip arthroplasties can be considered a primary replacement. Predicting outcomes for THA should focus on patient frailty and technical difficulties dealing with infection, stability and loss of bone stock and should discard the conversion versus revision terminology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The majority of conversion total hip arthroplasties can be considered a primary replacement: a matched cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, DHS, gamma nails, proximal femoral nails, and inter-Tan have become research hotspots (1, 7, 20, 21). In addition, mechanical failure of internal fixation, such as rotation, incision, and migration of internal fixation, has also attracted the attention of researchers (22)(23)(24)(25)(26). Additional research is required to overcome these complications and further improve the internal fixation devices for intertrochanteric fractures.…”

Section: Research Focus On Intertrochanteric Fracturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Trends in Intertrochanteric Hip Fracture Research From 2001 to 2020: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intertrochanteric femur fractures, which are common geriatric osteoporotic fractures, have imposed a huge economic and social burden. This study clarified the global status of research on intertrochanteric fractures between 2001 and 2020 and predicted future research trends in this field using bibliometric and visualized studies.Methods: Publications related to intertrochanteric fractures were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database. All studies were published between 2001 and 2020. Bibliometric and co-occurrence analyses were conducted using VoS viewer software.Results: In total, 2,632 studies were retrieved. The number of global publications regarding intertrochanteric fractures increased annually. The United States was the largest contributor, ranking first in total publications, citations, and the H-index. Switzerland had the highest average citation frequency among the 10 countries with the highest number of publications. The journal that published the most articles regarding intertrochanteric fractures was the Injury International Journal of The Care of The Injured, with 290 articles published. This journal also ranked first in the citation frequency. MJ Parker, an author, published the most papers in the field, and the University of California research team at San Francisco contributed the most publications in this field. During the co-occurrence analysis, all keywords were divided into four clusters: internal fixation study, complication study, risk-factor study, and survival and prognosis analysis study. The internal fixation and survival and prognosis analysis studies were predicted as the next hot topics in the field of intertrochanteric fractures.Conclusions: Intertrochanteric fractures are gaining increasing research attention according to the current global trend, and the number of publications regarding intertrochanteric hip fractures will continue to increase. The United States currently publishes the most articles on intertrochanteric fractures. The number of studies related to internal fixation, survival, and prognosis analysis is increasing, suggesting that these topics may become the next research hotspots in the area of intertrochanteric fractures.

show abstract

“…The use of revision stems has been reported to be associated with a low risk of periprosthetic fracture, ranged from 0 to 3.4% [ 3 , 8 , 14 – 16 ]. Cemented stem might be an effective alternative to fill the defect with cement without the need to bypass the screw holes by the suggested distance [ 10 , 12 , 29 ]. Despite the proposed mechanism and satisfying results from using a revision stem, the use of primary, standard stem still has achieved a success in treating failed intertrochanteric fractures [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, intra-operative femur fracture, stem subsidence or loosening, greater trochanter fracture, periprosthetic fracture or dislocation are some of the complications that may occur [ 3 , 6 – 9 ]. Currently, primary and revision femur stems with a cementless or cemented techniques have been utilized in the conversion procedure with satisfactory functional outcome and implant survival [ 8 , 10 – 16 ]. However, the choice of stem remains controversial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a role for cementless primary stem in hip arthroplasty for early or late fixation failures of intertrochanteric fractures?

Chou

Tsai

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The choice of femur stems during the hip arthroplasty procedures for patients with treatment failure of intertrochanteric fractures (ITF) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the surgical complication and reoperation rates between cementless primary and revision stems in the early (≤3 months) and late (> 3 months) fixation failures of ITF. Methods This was a retrospective, cohort study conducted in a single, tertiary referral hospital of Taipei, Taiwan. We included hip arthroplasty procedures for failed ITF using cementless primary or revision stems. There were 40 and 35 patients who had early and late fixation failure of ITF, respectively. The patient demographics, time to fixation failure, surgical complications and medical complications were recorded for analysis. Results We included 75 patients that underwent hip arthroplasty procedure for failed ITF using cementless primary (n = 38) or revision (n = 37) stems. The mean age was 79.3 years and 56% of the patients were female. In the early fixation failure group, the complication rate was similar between the primary and revision stems (44% vs. 29%, p = 0.343). However, there was a trend toward a higher reoperation rate (31% vs. 8%, p = 0.061) of using the primary stem, compared with the revision stem. In the late fixation failure group, the rate of complication and reoperation was similar between the two stem types. Conclusion For early fixation failures of ITFs, we caution against the use of cementless primary stems due to a trend towards an increased risk of reoperations compared to the use of cementless revision stems. However, in late fixation failures of ITFs, there is a role for cementless primary stems. Level of evidence III, retrospective cohort study.

show abstract

The Use of Standard Cemented Femoral Stems in Total Hip Replacement After Failed Internal Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fractures

Cited by 12 publications

References 33 publications

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The majority of conversion total hip arthroplasties can be considered a primary replacement: a matched cohort study

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The majority of conversion total hip arthroplasties can be considered a primary replacement: a matched cohort study

Global Trends in Intertrochanteric Hip Fracture Research From 2001 to 2020: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Is there a role for cementless primary stem in hip arthroplasty for early or late fixation failures of intertrochanteric fractures?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About