Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_
Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_ Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_
Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Abstract number: 25373 SURGICAL TREATMENT IN PROXIMAL FEMORAL PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES Tudor SORIN POP, Istvan GERGELY, Octav RUSSU, Ors NAGY Universitary Clinic of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Targu Mures (ROMANIA) Background: Fracture around the femoral stem is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty, which is now on the rise. Such fractures can range from being minor, with minimal or no effect on the outcome, to being catastrophic and possibly creating an unreconstructable problem with an immense effect on the patient's function. Material and methods: 34 patients with periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures, 23 men and 11 women, with a mean age of 61.4 years were included in this study. According to Vancouver classification system 15 fractures were type B1, 9 type B2, 4 type B3 and 6 type C. In cases associated with a well fixed stem (B1, C) we used internal fixation with cerclage wires or cables, screws and plates. All types of fractures associated with a loose femoral component (B2, B3) were treated by a revision arthroplasty using a long femoral stem inserted with or without cement, combined in 4 cases with cancellous bone-grafting. Results: The fractures healed between 10 to 24 weeks (average, 15.6 weeks). At the time of the latest follow-up (mean, 3.5 years), all patients were able to walk and had minimal or no pain, with good functional results. There were no non-unions, malunions or infections.Conclusion: Periprostethic femoral fractures can be managed by a wide variety of treatment options. Classification of the fractures with a correct evaluation of its location, fixation of the stem and bone quality allows a rational choice of reconstructive options. 72
Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Abstract number: 25380 HYPERSENSITIVITY AGAINST METAL AFTER TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY Ryo MIYAGI, Syunji NAKANO, Tateaki SHIMAKAWA Tokushima City Hospital, Tokushima (JAPAN) Background: Aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL), a complication of metal-on-metal arthroplasty, is a late hypersensitivity reaction mimicking infection. Case: A 71-year-old woman who underwent metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (THA) for hip osteoarthritis (OA) complained of hip pain aggravated during walking and consequent difficulty in walking at 6 months postoperatively. The left hip motion was limited to 65° flexion and -40° extension. Radiography revealed a well-seated metal-on-metal total hip prosthesis without any loosening, osteolysis, or implant failure. Magnetic resonance imaging showed no abscess formation or liquid retention. The C-reactive protein level was 23 mg/L; white blood cell count, 5.2 × 103/mm3 (eosinophil; 4.6%). A skin patch test against cobalt chromium was positive. A revision surgery performed for severe, 8-month-long pain showed thickened scar tissue over the implants, suggesting chronic inflammation. Since we suspected metal hypersensitivity, we replaced the metal liner with a polyethylene liner and inner head. Pathological examination of the scar revealed lymphocytic infiltration with granuloma, which is consistent with metal hypersensitivity. Culture examination was negative. Five months after the second operation, she can walk with a cane without pain. Discussion: Hypersenstivity reactions are being reported as an important complication of metal-on-metal arthroplasty in Caucasians but rarely in the Japanese, probably because this disease entity is not widely acknowledged in the Japanese. Conclusion: We report a Japanese case of metal hypersensitivity after a metal-onmetal THA. Metal hypersensitivity should be taken into account when unexplained pain after metal-on-metal THA is observed. 73
- Page 21 and 22: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 23 and 24: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 25 and 26: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 27 and 28: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 29 and 30: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 31 and 32: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 33 and 34: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 35 and 36: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 37 and 38: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 39 and 40: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 41 and 42: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 43 and 44: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 45 and 46: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 47 and 48: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 49 and 50: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 51 and 52: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 53 and 54: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 55 and 56: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 57 and 58: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 59 and 60: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 61 and 62: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 63 and 64: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 65 and 66: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 67 and 68: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 69 and 70: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 71: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 75 and 76: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 77 and 78: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 79 and 80: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 81 and 82: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 83 and 84: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 85 and 86: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 87 and 88: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 89 and 90: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 91 and 92: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 93 and 94: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 95 and 96: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 97 and 98: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 99 and 100: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 101 and 102: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 103 and 104: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 105 and 106: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 107 and 108: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 109 and 110: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 111 and 112: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 113 and 114: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 115 and 116: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 117 and 118: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Knee A
- Page 119 and 120: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Knee A
- Page 121 and 122: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Knee A
Poster<br />
Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip<br />
Abstract number: 25373<br />
SURGICAL TREATMENT IN PROXIMAL FEMORAL PERIPROSTHETIC<br />
FRACTURES<br />
Tudor SORIN POP, Istvan GERGELY, Octav RUSSU, Ors NAGY<br />
Universitary Clinic of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Targu Mures (ROMANIA)<br />
Background: Fracture around the femoral stem is a serious complication of total hip<br />
arthroplasty, which is now on the rise. Such fractures can range from being minor,<br />
with minimal or no effect on the outcome, to being catastrophic and possibly creating<br />
an unreconstructable problem with an immense effect on the patient's function.<br />
Material and methods: 34 patients with periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures, 23<br />
men and 11 women, with a mean age of 61.4 years were included in this study.<br />
According to Vancouver classification system 15 fractures were type B1, 9 type B2, 4<br />
type B3 and 6 type C. In cases associated with a well fixed stem (B1, C) we used<br />
internal fixation with cerclage wires or cables, screws and plates. All types of<br />
fractures associated with a loose femoral component (B2, B3) were treated by a<br />
revision arthroplasty using a long femoral stem inserted with or without cement,<br />
combined in 4 cases with cancellous bone-grafting. Results: The fractures healed<br />
between 10 to 24 weeks (average, 15.6 weeks). At the time of the latest follow-up<br />
(mean, 3.5 years), all patients were able to walk and had minimal or no pain, with<br />
good functional results. There were no non-unions, malunions or<br />
infections.Conclusion: Periprostethic femoral fractures can be managed by a wide<br />
variety of treatment options. Classification of the fractures with a correct evaluation of<br />
its location, fixation of the stem and bone quality allows a rational choice of<br />
reconstructive options.<br />
72