11.07.2015 Views

Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Poster: 81The Treament <strong>of</strong> 83 Vancouver B2 and B3 Peripros<strong>the</strong>tic Fractures AroundLoose Femoral Implants: Methods and Outcomes*Jonathan Phillips - Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals - Nottingham,UKChris Boulton - Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham - Nottingham, UKChris Moran - Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham - Nottingham, UKAndrew Manktelow - Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham - Nottingham, UK*Email: jonphillips99@hotmail.comPeripros<strong>the</strong>tic fractures around loose femoral implants represent a challenge to <strong>the</strong> surgeon. Wehave identified a cohort <strong>of</strong> 83 patients who have been admitted to <strong>the</strong> Queen’s Medical Centre,Nottingham since 1999 with Vancouver B2 or B3 peripros<strong>the</strong>tic fractures. Patients wereidentified via a prospective database <strong>of</strong> all trauma admissions and hospital notes wereindependently reviewed and data retrieved.We have examined <strong>the</strong> treatment methods and implants used, and identified <strong>the</strong>ir outcomes inrelation to union, fur<strong>the</strong>r revision surgery and mortality.The mean age was 81 years and 55% were female. Fractures were classified as B2 (71%, n=59)and B3 (29% n=24). 65% occurred around a total hip replacement; 35% around a hiphemiarthroplasty after previous hip fracture. Peripros<strong>the</strong>tic fracture occurred around a Charnleystem (n=25), Austin Moore (n=20), Hastings (n=8), Exeter (n=7), o<strong>the</strong>r (n=10). 13 o<strong>the</strong>r patientshad <strong>under</strong>gone previous revision surgery.The mean time from index surgery to fracture around primary stems was 104 months (median85); revision surgery to fracture 74 months (median 72). Mean length <strong>of</strong> stay 37.5 days (range5-157).The stem was revised in 83% <strong>of</strong> cases (n=69: THR 44, Hemi 25). The acetabulum was revisedin 49% <strong>of</strong> cases. The choice <strong>of</strong> revision stem was a long uncemented modular stem in 51% <strong>of</strong>cases (n=35: ZMR 24, Solution 9, Echelon 1), cemented stem in 26% <strong>of</strong> cases (n=18: Exeter13, Charnley 1, Thompson 1, Elite 5), long uncemented distally locked stem in 10% <strong>of</strong> cases(n=7: Reef 5, Huckstep 1, unknown 1), proximally and distally locked stem in 4% (n=3: Kent),proximal femoral replacement in 4% (n=3), and <strong>the</strong> original stem was reinserted in 3% (n=2).The fracture <strong>under</strong>went fixation in 12% <strong>of</strong> cases (n=8 cases: THR 5, Hemi 3). 5 cases weredouble-plated. Fixation was chosen in 5 patients as <strong>the</strong>y were considered too unwell to toleratemajor revision surgery. In two cases <strong>the</strong> stem was revised and <strong>the</strong> fracture was also plated. 5%<strong>of</strong> patients (n=4) were too unwell to <strong>under</strong>go surgery.44 (53%) patients have subsequently died. Two o<strong>the</strong>rs (2%) are lost to follow up and one isawaiting fracture union. Those alive have a mean follow up <strong>of</strong> 48 months (median 54).14 cases (17%) died before fracture union. One non-union occurred (deep infection prior toperipros<strong>the</strong>tic fracture). 5 cases (6%) had deep infection at time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> peripros<strong>the</strong>tic fracture. Afur<strong>the</strong>r two new deep infections occurred (3%). Dislocation occurred in 4 cases (5%).file:///E|/<strong>ISTA</strong>2010-Abstracts.htm[12/7/2011 3:15:47 PM]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!