[Analysis of effectiveness of greater trochanteric osteotomy approach and K-L posterior approach in patients with type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture]
Hanwen Zhang,Jianhua Ge,Xihai Zhang,Junwu Ye,Shi Shen,Naiqiang Zhuo,Yunkang Yang,Guan Wang,Yang Li,Xiaobo Lu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202003059
2020-10-15
Abstract:Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of two surgical approaches in the treatment of type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture. Methods: The clinical data of 15 patients with type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture treated surgically between July 2013 and June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical approaches, they were divided into group A (8 cases, using K-L posterior approach) and group B (7 cases, using greater trochanter osteotomy approach). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, and interval from injury to operation between the two groups ( P>0.05). The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, fracture healing time, and complications of the two groups were recorded. Hip joint function recovery was evaluated according to Thompson-Epstein functional evaluation system. Results: All the 15 patients were followed up 1-5 years, with an average of 2.5 years. There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups ( t=14.681, P=0.100); the incision length, intraoperative blood loss, and fracture healing time in group A were all greater than those in group B, and the hospital stay was shorter than that in group B, showing significant differences ( P<0.05). In group A, 1 patient presented hip pain, clasthenia, and limited mobility after operation, 1 patient presented ossifying myositis, 1 patient presented osteonecrosis of the femoral head, 1 patient presented fat liquefaction of incision, and 1 patient presented sciatica, with a complication incidence of 62.5%. Postoperative hip pain occurred in 1 patient and ossifying myositis in 2 patients in group B, with a complication incidence of 42.9%. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( χ 2=-0.735, P=0.462). At last follow-up, according to Thompson-Epstein functional evaluation system, the results in group A were excellent in 3 cases, good in 2 cases, fair in 2 cases, and poor in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 62.5%; in group B, the results were excellent in 4 cases, good in 2 cases, and fair in 1 case, and the excellent and good rate was 85.7%. There was no significant difference in good and fair rate between the two groups ( χ 2=-0.990, P=0.322). Conclusion: K-L posterior approach is more convenient in the fracture treatment during operation, but it has greater trauma, greater vascular damage, and more blood loss. The greater trochanter osteotomy approach can better protect the blood supply of femoral head, shorten the operation time, reduce intraoperative blood loss, and reduce postoperative complications. It is an ideal way in the surgical treatment of type Ⅳ Pipkin fracture.