Faculty Opinions recommendation of Internal fixation compared with total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures: a minimum fifteen-year follow-up study of a previously reported randomized trial.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D Neuman
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures

Total Hip Replacement Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (21) ◽  
pp. 1921-1928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghazi Khalil Chammout ◽  
Sebastian Simon Mukka ◽  
Thomas Carlsson ◽  
Gustaf Fredrik Neander ◽  
André Wilhelm Helge Stark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Displaced Femoral Neck Fractures

scholarly journals Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052110122
Author(s):  
Wenlu Liu ◽  
Huanyi Lin ◽  
Xianshang Zeng ◽  
Meiji Chen ◽  
Weiwei Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of primary metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-TR) converted to uncemented total hip replacement (UTR) or cemented total hip replacement (CTR) in patients with femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B/C). Methods Patient data of 234 UTR or CTR revisions after primary MoM-TR failure from March 2007 to January 2018 were retrospectively identified. Clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS) and key orthopaedic complications, were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion and every 12 months thereafter. Results The mean follow-up was 84.12 (67–100) months for UTR and 84.23 (66–101) months for CTR. At the last follow-up, the HHS was better in the CTR- than UTR-treated patients. Noteworthy dissimilarities were correspondingly detected in the key orthopaedic complication rates (16.1% for CTR vs. 47.4% for UTR). Statistically significant differences in specific orthopaedic complications were also detected in the re-revision rate (10.3% for UTR vs. 2.5% for CTR), prosthesis loosening rate (16.3% for UTR vs. 5.9% for CTR), and periprosthetic fracture rate (12.0% for UTR vs. 4.2% for CTR). Conclusion In the setting of revision of failed primary MoM-TR, CTR may demonstrate advantages over UTR in improving functional outcomes and reducing key orthopaedic complications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document