Journal of orthopaedics · 2022
Cement-in-cement versus uncemented modular stem revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fractures.
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.
Kennedy Ian W, Hrycaiczuk Alex, Ng Nigel Y B, Sheerins Owen, Patil Sanjeev R, Jones Bryn G, Stark Andrew, Meek R M Dominic
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare outcomes of revision to a long uncemented stem with cement-in-cement revision for Vancouver B2 periprosthetic fracture (PPF).
METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database.
RESULTS: We identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate.
CONCLUSION: With appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.
METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for a Vancouver B2 PPF in a cemented stem from 2008 to 2018 were identified using our prospectively collated database.
RESULTS: We identified 43 uncemented and 29 cement-in-cement revisions. Cement-in-cement revision had a shorter operative time, reduction in certain complications, no increased rate of non-union, lower degree of stem subsidence and no difference in re-revision rate.
CONCLUSION: With appropriate patient selection, both cement-in-cement and long uncemented stem revision represent appropriate treatment options for Vancouver B2 fractures.