RESUMEN
PURPOSE: distal femoral periprosthetic fracture (DFPPF) is a serious complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Recently, treatment of DFPPF with distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) has gained popularity because of its posited benefits for both patients and the medical system. Short-term follow-up trials investigating DFA have demonstrated acceptable results with regards to function, pain relief and lower postoperative complications than ORIF in elderly patients. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate a consecutive series of DFPPF treated with DFA, with a minimum 2- year follow-up. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study asses- sing the outcomes of distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) for patients diagnosed with DFPPF. RESULTS: Twenty patients were identified. The mean age of patients was 76.3 (SD, 9.41), the average time from the fracture to revision surgery was 6.7 days (SD, 11.35), The average operative time was 93.5 minutes (SD,16.6). The average follow-up time was 50.15 months (SD, 20.87). During this time, two patients (10%) had complications. One patient experienced a knee dislocation and the second patient had recurrent periprosthetic infections. At final follow up, the mean knee society score was 86.25 (SD, 9.44), the mean Forgotten joint score was 62.16(SD, 23.45) and 93.7 percent of patients were ambulatory. CONCLUSION: DFA following DFPPF is associated with high success rates and provides patients with the opportunity for return of function in a safe and reliable manner.
Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla , Fracturas del Fémur , Fracturas Periprotésicas , Anciano , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/efectos adversos , Fracturas del Fémur/cirugía , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Fracturas Periprotésicas/cirugía , Reoperación , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Digital templating is an essential step in the preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous studies have suggested that templating with the double marker method may be more accurate than a single marker method in the general population and in obese patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy in the preoperative component selection between the King Mark calibration device and the conventional metal ball method. Additionally, we examined whether King Mark offered any advantage over the standard metal ball in the preoperative selection of component sizes for obese patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent preoperative digital templating for THA in our center from January 2014 to January 2016 with King Mark device and marker ball. We compared the preoperative template component size and offset with the intraoperative definite implant size. The accuracy was defined as the difference between preoperative and intraoperative component sizes. The overall accepted calibration was defined as an exact match ± one size. Patients were stratified into two cohorts according to the calibration method: standard marker ball technique and King Mark technique. RESULTS: 126 THA underwent digital calibration. 79 patients underwent a preoperative templating using the King Mark calibration device. 47 patients were templated using a conventional marker ball. The overall adequate preoperative planning of the acetabular cup (exact or ± 1 size match) in the King Mark group did not differ from the single marker method (74.7% and 74.5%, respectively, p = 0.979). No significant difference was noted in the overall accepted calibration of the femoral stem (exact or ± 1 size match) between the marker ball group and the King Mark group (58.2% and 70.2%, respectively, p = 0.179). The King Mark group showed a better preoperative planning for the stem's offset compared to the marker ball group (77.2% % and 61.7%, respectively, p = 0.062). For the obese patient cohort, no significant difference was noted between the King Mark group and the marker ball group in the exact prediction of the acetabular cup and the femoral stem, (p = 0.31 and p = 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no difference between the King Mark method and the conventional metal ball method in the ability to accurately predict component sizes. In the subgroup of obese patients, the King Mark technique offered no advantage for accurately predicting component sizes.
Asunto(s)
Acetábulo/cirugía , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Fémur/cirugía , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/normas , Calibración , Humanos , Cuidados Preoperatorios , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) is a common injury in young athletes, causing pain in the involved leg compartment during strenuous exercise. The gold standard treatment is fasciotomy, but most of the reports on its effectiveness include relatively small cohorts and relatively short follow-up periods. This study reports the long-term results of a large cohort of young athletes who underwent single-incision fasciotomy for CECS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This a retrospective case-series study. All patients treated by fasciotomies performed for CECS between 2007 and 2011, in a tertiary medical institution. CECS was diagnosed following history taking and clinical evaluation, and confirmed by compartment pressure measurements. Ninety-five legs that underwent single-incision subcutaneous fasciotomy were included. Data on the numerical analog scale (NAS), Tegner activity score, and quality-of-life (QOL) as measured via the short form-12 (SF-12) were retrieved from all patients preoperatively and at the end of follow-up. RESULTS: The average time to diagnosis was 22 months and the mean follow-up was 50.1 months. Sixty-three legs underwent anterior compartment fasciotomy (an additional 30 legs also underwent lateral compartment release), and two legs underwent lateral and peroneal compartment releases. The average change in Tegner score was an improvement of 14.6 points. Similarly, the patients reported a significant improvement in the SF-12 and NAS scores. Satisfaction rates were high (average 75.5 %). The main complications were wound infection (2 patients) and nerve injuries (4 patients). Eight patients had recurrence. CONCLUSION: Single-incision fasciotomy leads to long-term improvement in the activity level and QOL of patients with CECS.