scholarly journals Treatment With Helical Blade Cephalomedullary Nail for Two-Part Basicervical Proximal Femoral Fracture in Elderly Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ichiro Okano ◽  
Takatoshi Sawada ◽  
Nobumasa Kushima ◽  
Tetsuya Tachibana ◽  
Katsunori Inagaki
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Femoral Fracture ◽  
Proximal Femoral Fracture ◽  
Rotational Stability ◽  
Cephalomedullary Nail ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Fracture Group ◽  
Helical Blade ◽  
Extracapsular Fracture

Background: Basicervical proximal femoral fracture is a known subtype of extracapsular fracture and is mechanically unstable, especially for the rotational direction, which may lead to implant failure. A cephalomedullary nail (CMN) is widely used for the fixation of unstable extracapsular fracture; however, its application for basicervical fracture remains controversial. Helical blade CMN is proven to have more rotational stability than traditional lag screw implants and potentially advantageous in the treatment of basicervical fracture. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of helical blade CMN for basicervical fracture in elderly patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 500 consecutive extracapsular fracture patients treated surgically between January 2005 and February 2015. Patients who had trochanteric extension or multifragment fracture were excluded. Sixteen cases of 2-part basicervical proximal femoral fracture were identified. All patients were treated with the same single helical blade CMN system (DePuy Synthes PFNA-II). Implant-related complications were recorded. Results: Two patients dropped out during follow-up and 14 patients were included in the analysis. The average follow-up period was 21.9 months. No major complication was observed. The patients were subcategorized into 2 groups: nondisplaced (displacement <2 mm at any point of the fracture line) or displaced. Excessive telescoping was observed in 2 patients, both of whom were in the displaced fracture group. The overall implant-related complication rate was 14.2% (2/16). Conclusion: Internal fixation with the helical blade CMN system can be considered as a treatment option for 2-part basicervical proximal femoral fracture in elderly patients.

Necrosis avascular

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-23
Author(s):  
Alejandro Jardón Gómez ◽  
Ana Cristina King ◽  
Carlos Pacheco Díaz
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Avascular Necrosis ◽  
Femoral Fracture ◽  
Open Fracture ◽  
Clinical Presentation ◽  
Femoral Fractures ◽  
Proximal Femoral Fracture ◽  
Young Population ◽  
Steroid Use

The clinical presentation of a proximal femoral fracture is completely different between young and adult patients. Unlike closed proximal femoral fractures, the incidence of exposed fractures is found in the young population between 15 and 30 years of age. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head is one the complications we can find in this type of fractures. Avascular necrosis (AVN or osteonecrosis) is defined as the interruption of blood supply to the femoral head due to trauma, infectionalcohol or steroid use, resulting in bone necrosis, joint collapse and osteoarthrosis. The treatment will depend on the clinical presentation, age of the patient and when the diagnosis is made. This is a case report of a 16-year-old patient with a gunshot wound on the hip. Surgical cleansing and closed reduction plus internal fixation with a nail in the center of the spine were performed. A 3-year clinical and radiographic follow up was made, observing the evolution of the fracture and the subsequent avascular necrosis that the patient presented. Key words: Proximal femoral fracture; hip; avascular necrosis (AVN, osteonecrosis); open fracture; osteoarthritis.

scholarly journals Feasibility and Safety of Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Advance Aged Patients: A Multicenter Comparative Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongyuan Ren ◽  
Binni Cai ◽  
Songyun Wang ◽  
Peng Jia ◽  
Yang Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Elderly Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Aged Patients ◽  
Fluoroscopic Time ◽  
Symptomatic Bradycardia

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been shown to be a safe and effective means to achieve physiological pacing. However, elderly patients have increased risks from invasive procedures and the risk of LBBP in elderly patients is not known. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of LBBP in elderly patients &gt;80 years of age.Methods: From December 2017 to June 2019, 346 consecutive patients with symptomatic bradycardia, 184 patients under 80 years of age and 162 over 80 years, were included and underwent LBBP. The safety and prognosis of LBBP were comparatively evaluated by measured pacing parameters, periprocedural complications, and follow-up clinical events.Results: Compared with the younger, the elderly group had worse baseline cardiac and renal function. LBBP was achieved successfully in both groups with comparable fluoroscopic time and paced QRS duration (110.0 [102.0, 118.0] ms for the young vs. 110.0 [100.0, 120.0] ms for the elderly, P = 0.874). Through a follow-up of 20.0 ± 6.1 months, pacing parameters were stable while higher threshold and impedance were observed in the elderly group. In the evaluation of safety, overall procedure-related complication rates were comparable (4.4 vs. 3.8%, young vs. elderly). For prognosis, similar rates of major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (7.1 vs. 11.9%, young vs. elderly) were observed.Conclusions: Compared to younger patients, LBBP could achieve physiological pacing in patients over 80 with comparable midterm safety and prognosis. Long-term safety and benefits of LBBP, however, necessitate further evaluation.

scholarly journals Perioperative pain management in elderly patients with а proximal femoral fracture: evidence review

Pain medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Anastasiia Romanenko ◽  
Юрій Кучин ◽  
Катерина Бєлка ◽  
Ігор Токар
Keyword(s):  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Femoral Fracture ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Perioperative Period ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Proximal Femoral Fracture ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Number Of Patients

The purpose of this article is to compare different methods of analgesia during perioperative period in elderly patients with а proximal femoral fracture. The incidence of hip fracture is high and also rises with the age, for example, In Great Britain, number of patients with a hip fracture will be approximately 100 000 in 2033, and it’s also associated with significant healthcare financing. Nevertheless, effective pain management is a big challenge for clinicians because of considerable problems in geriatric patients, including age, physiological changes in the elderly, preexisting comorbidities, cognitive impairment, high risk of delirium, problems with rehabilitation and probability of an independent life [12].   Opioids are still the main option for hip fracture pain management, despite differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in elderly patients, which are correlated with high frequency of side effects. Opioid-related adverse drug events are associated with worse patient outcomes such as morbidity, mortality and length of stay increase. Therefore, peripheral nerve blocks as part of multimodal analgesic technique can provide more effective pain control after hip fracture. Comprehensive literature searches focus on the use of peripheral nerves blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia or as a supplement to general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

Assessment of Mortality Risk in Elderly Patients After Proximal Femoral Fracture

Orthopedics ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. e194-e200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M.T.A. Meessen ◽  
Salvatore Pisani ◽  
Maria L. Gambino ◽  
Domenico Bonarrigo ◽  
Natasja M. van Schoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Femoral Fracture ◽  
Proximal Femoral Fracture

scholarly journals Acute femoral fracture does not compromise the outcome of total hip arthroplasty : 5 year results from a single center cohort study in 2,782 patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-338
Author(s):  
Stefan B.T. Bolder ◽  
Elsa A. Spaans ◽  
Joost A.A.M. Van den Hout ◽  
Robert Wagenmakers ◽  
Koen L.M. Koenraadt
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoral Fracture ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Fracture Group ◽  
Neck Fracture

National arthroplasty registries reveal a higher risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture and dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with a femoral neck fracture compared to those with osteoarthritis (OA). Since these registries may con- tain confounding factors, we conducted a single center cohort study comparing survival and reason for failure between THA for an acute femoral neck fracture and OA using the same hip prosthesis after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. We retrospectively analyzed 2782 patients who had undergone THA with an Accolade TMZF stem and a Trident cup between March 2009 and September 2014. Primary diagnosis before THA was osteoarthritis (OA group : n=2610) or acute femoral fracture (Fracture group : n=172). Patients in both groups were operated on by the same hip surgeons. Effect of diagnosis on THA survival was analyzed using Cox-regression analysis. Chi-square tests were used to illustrate the different reasons for revision between the groups. Mean follow-up was 4.6 years (2-7.6). A total of 100 revisions were performed. The revision risk was comparable between the OA and Fracture group (HR=1.04, 95% CI :0.46-2.39). No differences were found between the OA and Fracture group with respect to the occurrence of periprosthetic fractures (0.8% vs. 0.6%, p=0.71) and revisions for dislocation (0.6% vs. 1.2%, p=0.38). We found no difference in outcome or reason for revision between THA for OA or femoral neck frac- ture. Using an implant with a proven ODEP rating and having experienced hip surgeons carry out the procedures may be more important than the primary diagnosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document