m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
International orthopaedics · 2017

Causes for early and late surgical re-intervention after radial head arthroplasty.

СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Laumonerie Pierre, Ancelin David, Reina Nicolas, Tibbo Meagan E, Kerezoudis Panagiotis, Delclaux Stephanie, Bonnevialle Nicolas, Mansat Pierre

Аннотация

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to describe the reasons for surgical re-intervention after radial head arthroplasty. The secondary objective was to analyze the radiographic and clinical outcomes after surgical re-intervention at the elbow with implant conservation.

METHODS: Among the 70 radial head arthroplasties with bipolar radial head implant performed between 2002 and 2014, 29 required surgical re-interventions. Reasons for surgical re-intervention were gathered from operative notes and follow-up documentation. Patients who underwent re-intervention with implant retention were reassessed via clinical and radiographic examinations by an independent reviewer.

RESULTS: Twenty nine re-operations were performed at a mean follow-up of 16 ± 11.7 months (0.2-36 months). The prosthesis was removed in 18 cases and retained in 11. There was a significant difference in mean time to re-intervention between the implant removal and preservation groups, 23.1 ± 8.3 months (7-36 months) and 4.4 ± 4.7 months (0.2-13 months), respectively (p < 0.001). The primary reason for surgical re-intervention was painful loosening (13 cases). Radio-capitellar instability was the most frequent reason for re-intervention with implant retention (5 cases). Midterm quickDASH and MEPS after surgical re-intervention with implant retention were 15.4 ± 5.4 and 82.27 ± 7.3, respectively. At least one degenerative lesion was reported in nine cases (81.8%) (i.e. 5 periprosthetic osteolysis, 5 capitellar wear, 5 periarticular heterotopic ossification).

CONCLUSIONS: Painful loosening and capitellar instability are the primary reasons for surgical re-intervention with or without implant removal. Midterm clinical results are favourable despite an elevated rate of degenerative lesions after surgical re-intervention with implant retention.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты