Journal of orthopaedics · 2017
Experience of the posterior lip augmentation device in a regional hip arthroplasty unit as a treatment for recurrent dislocation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hoggett L, Cross C, Helm T
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant complication of the procedure and is the third leading cause for revision THA. One technique for treatment of this complication is the use of the posterior lip augmentation device (PLAD). We describe our experience using the PLAD including complication rates.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 55 PLADs (54 patients) was carried out following identification from electronic theatre records. Basic patient demographics, operative records and radiographs were collected and reviewed and data was analysed using Microsoft Excel. Failure of the PLAD was defined as further operative intervention after PLAD insertion and included: dislocation, implant breakage, infection and revision of the THA for loosening of either component.
RESULTS: 55 PLADs were implanted in 54 patients with an average age of 77 years. There was a significant preponderance of females and a variety of surgical approaches had been used for the original hip replacement, including trochanteric osteotomy, posterior and antero-lateral. 9 (16%) patients had recurrent dislocations,1 (2%) failed secondary to screw breakage, 3 (5%) had and infection requiring intervention and 2 (4%) underwent further revision for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. The overall failure rate was 25% with 14 patients requiring intervention post PLAD.
CONCLUSION: Our results are inferior to other published results and indicate that the PLAD should be used with caution for recurrent dislocations of the Charnley hip replacement.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 55 PLADs (54 patients) was carried out following identification from electronic theatre records. Basic patient demographics, operative records and radiographs were collected and reviewed and data was analysed using Microsoft Excel. Failure of the PLAD was defined as further operative intervention after PLAD insertion and included: dislocation, implant breakage, infection and revision of the THA for loosening of either component.
RESULTS: 55 PLADs were implanted in 54 patients with an average age of 77 years. There was a significant preponderance of females and a variety of surgical approaches had been used for the original hip replacement, including trochanteric osteotomy, posterior and antero-lateral. 9 (16%) patients had recurrent dislocations,1 (2%) failed secondary to screw breakage, 3 (5%) had and infection requiring intervention and 2 (4%) underwent further revision for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. The overall failure rate was 25% with 14 patients requiring intervention post PLAD.
CONCLUSION: Our results are inferior to other published results and indicate that the PLAD should be used with caution for recurrent dislocations of the Charnley hip replacement.