Tratamiento quirúrgico de las fracturas intertrocantéricas del fémur con placa tornillo dinámico convencional comparado con tornillo dinámico helicoidal
Contribuinte(s) |
Trillos Peña, Carlos Enrique |
---|---|
Data(s) |
27/02/2014
|
Resumo |
Introducción: Las fracturas intertrocantéricas han llegado a nuestros días con una mayor incidencia dado el envejecimiento de la población, con fracturas más complejas, menos estables y asociadas a osteoporosis, se estima que representan aproximadamente 1,75 millones de años de vida perdidos ajustados a discapacidad es decir 0,1% de la carga de morbilidad a nivel mundial. Existe consenso en el tratamiento quirúrgico de este tipo de fracturas, presentando una incidencia variable de fallos, principalmente cuando son inestables, entre estos el denominado “cuto ut”. La utilización de un método de fijación con placa y tornillo helicoidal (DHHS) aparentemente disminuye la incidencia de dichos fallos con respecto a otras técnicas. Metodología: Por medio de una muestra calculada en 128 de pacientes con fracturas intertrocantéricas operados con DHS y DHHS entre el 2007 y el 2012 en La Clínica San Rafael de la ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia, se realizó un análisis multivariado para determinar si existe o no diferencias significativas en los índices de fallo entre estas dos técnicas. Resultados: Los pacientes incluidos en el estudio 54 (42,1%) fueron hombres y 74 (57,8%) fueron mujeres. 75 fueron operados con DHHS y 53 con DHS; en cuanto a las comorbilidades las principales fueron Hipertensión con 40 pacientes para DHS y 30 para DHHS, para el caso de Diabetes Mellitus fueron 13 y 9 para DHS y DHHS, respectivamente; en cuanto al tipo de fractura más común la principal fue la clasificación Tronzo II con 9 pacientes para DHS y 13 para DHHS. Conclusión. Para el estudios se evidencia que para los 3 desenlaces principales evaluados, 1. El porcentaje de re intervención (p=0,282), 2. La supervivencia en el primer año (p=0,499) y 3. El desempeño funcional con la escala de Oxford (p=0,06); no hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos. Introduction: Intertrochanteric fractures have a higher incidence nowadays, mainly due to aging population, who are suffering fractures more complex, less stable and associated with osteoporosis. It is estimated that this type of fractures represents approximately 1.75 million years of lost life adjusted to disability, equal to 0.1% of the burden disease worldwide. There is a consensus in the surgical treatment for these fractures, which come up with a variable incidence of failures, especially when they are unstable, as in the case of the ones called "cut out". The usage of the method of fixation with plate and helical screw (DHHS) apparently decreases the incidence of such failures with respect to other techniques. Methodology: Using a calculated sample size of 128 patients with intertrochanteric fractures operated with DHS and DHHS from 2007 to 2012 at San Rafael Medical Clinic (Bogota, Colombia), a multivariate analysis was performed to determine if there are or there are not significant failure rates differences between these two techniques. Results: Patients included in this study were 54 (42.1%) male and 74 (57.8%) women. 75 were operated with DHHS and 53 with DHS. Main comorbidities were: Hypertension with 40 patients for DHS and 30 for DHHS; and, Diabetes Mellitus with 13 and 9 for DHS and DHHS respectively. The most common type of fracture in Tronzo’s classification was type 2 with 9 patients for DHS and 13 for DHHS. Conclusion: For the three main outcomes evaluated: 1. Percentage of reoperation (p=0,282) , 2. Survival during the first year (p=0,499) and 3. Functional performance according to Oxford’s scale (p=0,06), study shows there were no statistically significant differences between groups. |
Formato |
application/pdf |
Identificador | |
Idioma(s) |
spa |
Publicador |
Facultad de medicina |
Direitos |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Fonte |
instname:Universidad del Rosario reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR Adams CL, R. C.-B. (2001). Prospective randomized controlled trial on fan intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 394-400. Ahrengrant L, T. H. (2002). A randomized study of the compresion hip screw and gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 209-222 Akan K, C. H. (2011). Effect of osteoporosis on Clinical Outcomes in Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures Treated with a Proximal Femoral Nail. The Journal of International Medical Research, 857-865 Angthong C, S. T. (2009). Major risk factors for the second contraletaral hip fracture in the elderly. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica journal (AOTT), 193-198 Baumgaerthner MR, S. B. (1997). Awareness of tip apex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 969-971 Baumgaertner M, C. S. (1995). The value of the tip apex distance in predicting failure o fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 1058-1064 Bhandari M, S. E. (2009). Gamma Nails Revisted: Gamma Nails Versus Compression Hip Screws in the Management of Intertrochanteric Fractures of the Hip: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 460-464 Bruijn k, H. D. (2012). Reliability of predictors for Screw Cutout in intertrochanteric Hip Fractures. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 1266-1272 Burge R, D.-H. B. (2007). Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research , 465-475 Cleveland M, B. D. (1959). Aten year analysis of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Dawson J, F. R. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 185-190 Fitzpatrick DC, S. D. (2011). A randomized, prospective study comparing intertrochanteric hip fracture fixation with the dinamic hip screw and the dynamic helical hip system in a community practice. The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal, 166-172 Gardner M, L. D. (2004). Osteoporotic femoral neck fractures: management and current controversies. Instructional course lectures - ResearchGate, 427-439 Gari E, D. l. (2008). Resultados del Tratamiento de fracturas intertrocantericas inestables con clavo cefalomedular bloqueado. Revista Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatologia, 60-66 Geller JA, S. C. (2010). Tip apex distance o intramedullary devices as a predictor of cutout failure in the treatmen of peritrochanteric elderly hip fractures. International Orthopaedics, the Official Journal of the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie (SICOT), 719-722 Gullberg B, J. O. (1997). World wide projections for Hip Fracture. International Osteoporosis, 407-413 Hrubina M, S. M. (2010). Complications of dynamic hip screw treatment for proximal femoral fractures. Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca, 395-401 Hsueh K, F. C. (2010). Risk factors in cutout of sliding hip screw in intertrochanteric fractures: an evaluation of 937 patients. International Orthopaedics, the Official Journal of the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie (SICOT), 1273-1276 Jenson CSM, I. D. (2010). Evidence-based guidelines for the management of hip fractures in older persons: an update. Medical Journal of Australia, 37-41 Jhonell O, K. J. (2004). An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. International Osteoporosis, 807-902 Kaufer H. (1980). Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR), 53-61 Kraus M, K. G. (2011). Clinical Evaluation of PFNA and relationship between the tip apex distance and mechanical failure. Unfallchirurg , 470-478 Kyle RF, G. R. (1979). Analysis of six hundred and twentytwo intertrocanteric hip fractures. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 216-221 Lobo-Escolar A, J. E. (2010). Predictive factors for cutting-out in femoralintramedullary nailing. Injury, 1312-1316 Lorich DG. (2004). Osteoportic pertrochanteric hip fractures. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 398-410 Martinez A. (2005). Fracturas de Cadera en Ancianos, Pronostico, Epidemiologia, Aspectos generales. Revista Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatologia., 20-28 Melton Lj. (1994). A Wordwide problem today and tomorrow. Bone, 1-8 Mereddy P, K. S. (2009). The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) : a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures. Injury, 428-432 Muller M, N. K. (1990). The comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. New York Springer, 118 Parker MJ, H. H. (2008). Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Reviews | The Cochrane Collaboration Saudan M, L. A. (2002). Pertrochanteric fractures: is there an advantage to an intramedullary nail?: a randomized, prospective study of 206 patients comparing the dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. Journal Orthopedic Trauma, 386-393 Simmermacher R, L. J. (2008). The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury, 932-939 Singer B, M. G. (1998). Epidemiology of fractures in 15000 adults. The influence of age and gender. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 243-248 Singh N, N. A. (1970). Changes in trabecular pattern of the upper end of the femur as an index of osteoporosis. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery , 457-467 Stern R, L. A. (2011). Prospective radomised study comparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low energy trochanteric fractures. International Orthopaedics, the Official Journal of the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie (SICOT), 1855-1861 SYNTHES. (2009). Synthes Companies. Recuperado el 16 de octubre de 2012, de Instrucciones de uso DHS/DCS- Guias de Tecnica Quirurgica: http://www.synthes.com/sites/intl/IntlSearch/Pages/results.aspx?sq=1&k=sistema&r=write%3D%22AQdFYXJsaWVyBXdyaXRlABcBWzsyMDEyLTA2LTA3VDIzOjU5OjU5Wl0%3D%22&IsPost=TRUE&start1=631 SYNTHES. (s.f.). Guia Tecnica de DHS. Recuperado el 2013, de http://www.synthes.com/sites/intl/IntlContent/Files/046.000.686.pdf Takigami I, M. K. (2008). Treatment of trochanteric fractures with the PFNA (Proximal femoral nail antirotation) nail system, report of early results. Bulletin for NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases. A Journal of Othopeadics, Rheumatology and Related Disciplines, 276-279 Windolf M, B. V. (2008). The epidemiology of acute sports-related fractures in aduls. Injury Vol 39, 1365-1372. Zuckerman J. (1996). Hip fracture. New england Journal of Medicine, 1519-1525. TEME |
Palavras-Chave | #Fracturas #Fracturas de cadera #Fracturas del fémur #Ortopedia #Intertrochanteric fractures, #dynamic hip screw #dynamic helical hip crew #failure #cut -out |
Tipo |
info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion |