Special aspects of total hip arthroplasty in patients with proximal femur pseudarthrosis
Valery Yu Murylev,Gennady G Rubin,Grigory A Kukovenko,Pavel M Elizarov,Aleksei V Muzychenkov,Semyon S Alekseev,Nikolay E Erokhin,Evgeniya Yu Tselishcheva,Alexander G Zhuchkov,Alexander I Rudnev
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2024.02.029
2024-02-23
Abstract:Introduction: The rate of proximal femur fractures (PFF) in the structure of musculoskeletal system injuries among all fractures of long bones ranges from 3.9 to 18%. According to Russian Ministry of Health 2020 data, the incidence of femoral fractures in Russia was up to 61 cases per 100,000 population (90,000 per year); and femoral neck fractures incidence was 4 times higher among people over 75 years of age. The choice of surgical technique and the fixator used depend on many factors, such as fracture location and its nature, the age of the patient, comorbidities, and the quality of bone tissue. Internal osteosynthesis, is the current treatment method of choice for extra-articular proximal femur fracture, but every treatment method has its limitations. a significant number of complications caused by technical errors, vicious union or nonunion with the subsequent development of false joints, the development of femoral head aseptic necrosis, which leads to coxarthrosis and persistent pain syndrome. To solve the above-described problems, it is necessary to use a conversion surgery - total hip replacement. Objectives: long-term analysis of the results of total hip replacement in patients with proximal femur pseudarthrosis. Methods: The study was based on clinical and laboratory data analysis and on the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 45 patients aged 56-84 years (mean age 68.3), including 32 (71.1%) women and 13 (26.1%) men. 12 patients initially received conservative treatment, and 33 patients received initial surgical treatment using various metal osteosynthesis procedures. The time from osteosynthesis or from the moment of injury to admission to the hospital for hip arthroplasty ranged from 12 to 30 months. All patients, before conversion arthroplasty and after discharge, were repeatedly invited to the clinical diagnostic department for a clinical examination and for assessment using rating scales. 3, 6 and 12 months after the surgery, pain syndrome and patient quality of life were assessed using the following questionnaire scales: Harris Hip Score, MOS SF-36, VAS. The maximum follow-up period ranged from 12 to 60 months. Results: Based on the results obtained, patients of all 4 groups after conversion arthroplasty noted a significant quality of life improvement, a decrease in pain severity and functional results improvement. This was probably due to the presence of a severe limitation of range of movements in the joint, intense pain, absence of support ability of the extremity, as well as low operative efficacy expectations.In 1 (2%) patient, acute PJI was diagnosed in the early postoperative period, followed by sepsis and death.In 4 patients (9%) the result was considered unsatisfactory. At 1 year of follow-up after surgery, they complained of pain and claudication in the operated joint.3 (6%) patients underwent reduction of dislocation. Conclusions: Strict adherence to the recommended treatment algorithm for patients with proximal femur pseudarthrosis made it possible to achieve good treatment results in 90% of surgically treated patients. An important step in the treatment of this patients is a careful preoperative planning with thorough assessment of bone tissue quality and muscles condition in the proximal femur area, allowing to choose the optimal endoprosthesis components.