Internal Fixation Versus Hemiarthroplasty For Intracapsular Fracture Of The Femur
A Abosala
Citation
A Abosala. Internal Fixation Versus Hemiarthroplasty For Intracapsular Fracture Of The Femur. The Internet Journal of Orthopedic Surgery. 2003 Volume 2 Number 1.
Abstract
The goal of this article is to evaluate our practice. We assessed and compared the outcome for 2 groups (internal fixation vs. hemiarthroplasty (AM) and total hip replacement THR) with particular interest in the re-operation rate.
We conducted a retrospective study with 87 cases in total. 47 had cannulated screws and 40 had AM
We concluded that there is no significant difference between the two groups in regard to mobility, pain status and mortality rate. We found a higher re-operation rate in screws group, although similar to many other studies.
Figure 1
Introduction
-
3 choices of treatment are available for displaced intracapsular fracture , namely internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty (AM) and THR
-
Standard recommendations are:
-
-
Age more than 70 yrs hemiarthroplasty
-
Age less than 70 yrs internal fixation
-
Moderate/sever OA THR
-
Immobile patient consider no treatment
-
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Aim of the study
-
To evaluate our practice.
-
Assess and compare the outcome for both groups. Particular interest in the re-operation rate.
Previous studies
-
A study by k. Ravikumar and G. Marsh shows no difference in the mortality rate between the three groups . One year revision rate of internal fixation group is 25%. Recommend THR in physiologically active patients.
-
A study by Annti Alho and David Rietti in Norway (1980), the total cost of prosthetic replacement was found to be 1.6 times more expensive than the internal fixation.
Type of the Study
-
Retrospective study.
-
87 case in total, 47 had cannulated screws and 40 had AM (May 98 - June 2000 )
-
Part of the information obtained from original data which have been collected regularly for The Scottish Hip Audit.
-
4 months F/U done by questionnaire filled by the mail or on the phone.
-
Only displaced fractures of femoral neck were included.
-
Both groups compared with regard to:
-
-
discharge destination.
-
Mortality .
-
Mobility.
-
Pain status.
-
Place of residence prior to fracture and at 4 months F/U.
-
Re-operation rate at 4 months and one year F/U.
-
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Re-Operation Rate At 4 Months
-
The screws group shows higher figure (12.76%) compared to just (0%) for the AM group.
-
In the screws group
-
-
6 patients underwent major surgery ( removal of screws & THR) ,one of them dislocated once.
-
Figure 18
Re-operation rate at 1 year in both groups
-
Screws group:
-
-
further two pts underwent removal of screws and THR.
-
In addition, two pts underwent removal of screws ( rate risen to 21.27%).
-
-
AM group:
-
-
two pts underwent removal of prosthesis and THR.
-
one patient sustained fracture shaft of femur around the prosthesis (ORIF)
-
Reasons of re-operation
-
Screws group:
-
-
Early mechanical failure. 4 cases [THR]
-
Pain
-
-
avascular necrosis . One case
-
screws protrusion
-
-
laterally 5 cases
-
to joint 1 case
-
-
-
AM group
pain 2 cases
fracture 1 case
Figure 19
Conclusion
-
There is no significant difference between the two groups in regard to mobility, pain status and mortality rate.
-
Selecting criteria close to SIGN .
-
Higher re-operation rate in screws group,although similar to many other studies.
-
It is interesting to see the re-operation rate in this group with further F/U .