Revista espanola de cirugia ortopedica y traumatologia (English ed.) · 2020
Surgical treatment of periprosthetic humerus fractures and algorithm.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
González Del Pozo J, Andrés-Cano P, Belascoain Benítez E, Giráldez Sánchez M A, Cano-Luis P, Moreno Domínguez R, Martín Antúnez J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic humerus fractures are infrequent and sometimes difficult to treat. There is limited literature and no consensus on the handling of these fractures. The objective of this study was to compare our results with those published in the literature, in order to improve our care and propose a management algorithm.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Observational study of 10cases of periprosthetic humerus fractures with a mean follow-up of the patients of 23months. An analysis of sociodemographic, radiological and surgical variables was performed. They were reviewed clinically and by telephone using the UCLA Shoulder Score and Quick-DASH scales. A systematic search was made in Pubmed for periprosthetic humerus fractures, for a literature review with which to compare our series.
RESULTS: We analysed 10patients with an average age of 69.4years (37-91). Of the patients, 90% underwent surgery through open reduction and internal fixation. Nine of the ten patients consolidated in a mean time of 6.2months (range 5-12), the remaining suffered a new fracture 5months after the intervention, who were reoperated and a new osteosynthesis performed with bone allograft. In the UCLA scale there was a decrease of 10.66points, and an increase of 27.3points in the Quick-DASH, at the end of the follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: In our series of cases we found similarities in the literature, in relation to demographic aspects and obtaining good radiographic results, which do not correspond to the functional outcome of patients.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Observational study of 10cases of periprosthetic humerus fractures with a mean follow-up of the patients of 23months. An analysis of sociodemographic, radiological and surgical variables was performed. They were reviewed clinically and by telephone using the UCLA Shoulder Score and Quick-DASH scales. A systematic search was made in Pubmed for periprosthetic humerus fractures, for a literature review with which to compare our series.
RESULTS: We analysed 10patients with an average age of 69.4years (37-91). Of the patients, 90% underwent surgery through open reduction and internal fixation. Nine of the ten patients consolidated in a mean time of 6.2months (range 5-12), the remaining suffered a new fracture 5months after the intervention, who were reoperated and a new osteosynthesis performed with bone allograft. In the UCLA scale there was a decrease of 10.66points, and an increase of 27.3points in the Quick-DASH, at the end of the follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: In our series of cases we found similarities in the literature, in relation to demographic aspects and obtaining good radiographic results, which do not correspond to the functional outcome of patients.