SMW Supplementum 193 - Swiss Medical Weekly

41 S SWiSS Med Wkly 2012;142(Suppl 193) · www.smw.ch Posters
evaluated the outcome of monopolar hemiarthroplasty by the direct
anterior approach over a postoperative period up to 2.5 years. A total
of 86 patients with displaced femoral neck fractures were included
(mean age of 86.5 years). Surviving patients were reviewed 3 months
(retrospectively) and 1 to 2.5 years (prospectively) after surgery. The
3-month mortality was 30%, the 1-year mortality 36%.For all stems,
implant positioning concerning stem alignement, leg length and
restoration of femoral offset was radiographically correct. Acetabular
protrusion was observed in 55% of the patients 1 to 2.5 years
postoperatively. Subsidence and intraoperative periprosthetic fractures
occurred in 3 patients (3%) each. All revision stems for postoperative
periprosthetic fractures could be implanted using the initial surgical
technique without extension of the previous approach. The mean
Harris Hip Score increased from 81 points (range 35–100) at the
3-month follow-up to 85 points (range 33–100) at the 1- to 2.5-year
follow-up. According to these findings, hip replacement for displaced
femoral neck fractures can be performed safely and effectively through
the direct anterior approach with good functional outcome and high
patient satisfaction.
P20
Total hip replacement gives better clinical results than
total knee replacement– comparison with the Repp-factor
(relative effect per person)
Joerg Huber1 , Essam Dabis2 , Marc Daniel Zumstein2 , Jürg Hüsler3 1Stadtspital Triemli; 2Orthopädie/Kantonsspital Aarau, 3Institut für
mathematische Statistik Uni Bern
Introduction: It’s a common belief that total hip replacement (THR)
gives better clinical results compared with total knee replacement
(TKR). The result for the individual patient seems to be more important
than the cohort. We developed a method to calculate the effect of a
treatment for the individual patient based on patient questionnaires.
The formula (Score before – Score after) divided through (Score
before) gives a factor “Repp”-factor (Relative effect per patient). This
factor can be 1.0 for the best treatment (Score before-0/Score before)
and goes to minus with a higher score after treatment (worse result).
If the Score before is 0 the calculation is not possible. To interpret the
results we propose 5 categories, depending on the “Repp” factor.
Excellent: 1.0 to 0.95, good: