Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 54 - 54
1 Mar 2009
Fernandez-Fernandez R Duran D Garcia-Rey E Gil-Garay E
Full Access

Introduction: Bone stock in revision total hip arthroplasty is one of the most important issues for the orthopaedic surgeon. Different options have been described to manage acetabular bone defects. We reviewed the clinical and radiological results of two different uncemented oblong cups

Material and methods: 18 LOR (Sulzer) and 21 BOFOR (EndoPlus) uncemented cups were evaluated. Morsellized cancellous bone graft was used in all cases but 3. Mean follow-up was 31.6 months. Mean patient age was 72.3 years (32 to 91). Bone defects were classified according to Paprosky’s criteria. Clinical and radiological results were recorded.

Results: There have been no infections and no re-revisions in this series, although one patient is awaiting evaluation for re-revision. Clinical results improved according to the Harris Hip Score from 44 to 75 points. 34 cups were considered stable and 5 showed migration. All unstable cups were implanted in patients with type IIIA or IIIB bone defects. We observed the appearance of non-progressive radiolucent lines of less than 2 mm in 7 hips, sclerosis lines in 1 and acetabular osteolysis in 2.

Conclusions: Uncemented oblong cups are a valid option in revision total hip arthroplasty. The results were worse in patients with major acetabular bone defects. A longer follow-up is needed to evaluate these cups and confirm our findings.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 88-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 330 - 330
1 May 2006
Fernandez R Fiz N Crespo E Pérez-Tierno S
Full Access

Introduction: Fractures of the proximal third of the femur are a major health problem in Western countries, where there has been a high increase in their incidence due to factors such as ageing of the population, which in itself does not explain the rise in this pathology.

Fractures of this type are one of the main causes of mortality and morbidity in the elderly, the main risk group.

In the context of the above, it is useful to know the different variables that influence aetiopathogenesis, prevention and treatment while in hospital and after release.

Materials and methods: We carried out a retrospective study of 250 fractures in patients admitted to this hospital between 2001 and 2003, with a one-year follow-up, and designed a data-collection form. We divided the patients into two groups, those who had died and those alive after one year, and compared the different variables using SPSS statistical software.

Results: The one-year mortality rate in hip-fracture patients in our hospital is 25%, within the limits found in the literature. Age, ASA surgical risk and dementia are factors that have a significant influence on one-year mortality in hip-fracture patients.

Conclusions: The main factors that significantly influence one-year mortality are those inherent to the patient, such as age, ASA surgical risk and dementia.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 88-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 325 - 325
1 May 2006
Martínez-Arribas E Sánchez-Ramos V Maroñas-Abuelo C Diaz-Fernandez R Bas T Bas P
Full Access

Purpose: To review the sagittal lumbar and clinical profile of the two surgical procedures: TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion).

Materials and methods: We carried out a retrospective study of 46 patients who underwent circumferential fusion in 2000–2001. TLIF was used in the first group (21) and ALIF in the second (25). The posterior approach with pedicle instrumentation was used in all patients. Lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine in neutral position and bipedestation were used for evaluation before and after surgery and during follow-up. The results were compared statistically using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test.

Results: Lumbar lordosis was achieved with both techniques: TLIF+PF(posterior fusion) −33° (preoperative), −46° (postoperative) and ALIF+ PF −49° (preoperative), −54° (postoperative). However the height of the disc improved significantly with the anterior approach: TLIF+ PF 0.62 (preoperative), 1.35 (postoperative) and ALIF+PF 1 (preoperative), 4.65 (postoperative).

The duration of surgery, blood loss and hospital stay were greater with ALIF+PF than with TLIF+PF.

Conclusions: TLIF+PF has clinical and economic advantages over ALIF+PF. Lumbar lordosis and the area of instrumented lordosis was achieved with both circumferential fusion procedures and the only radiographic difference was the restoration of the disc height with ALIF.