You are here

Home » Content

İleri Yaş Ayrılmış Femur Boyun Kırıklarında Unipolar ve Bipolar Protez Uygulamaları

Using Unipolar and Bipolar Prosthesis in Eldery With Displaced Femur Neck Fractures

Journal Name:

  • Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
We evaluated and compared the functional and radiological results of 80 cases treated with the unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fractures, performed in Uludag University Faculty of Medicine Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department between 1996 and 2002. 40 cases treated with unipolar prosthesis were allocated in Group I and 40 cases treated with bipolar prosthesis were in Group II. There was 24 female and 16 male patients in Group I whereas 29 female and 11 male patients in Group II. In Group I it was 71 (45-97) and in Group II it was 67 (47-87). All cases in both groups were evaluated according to Garden classification and preoperatively prepared for hemiarthroplasty. All cases were followed by radiological evaluations and by Haris Hip evaluation System. The functional results in group II were beter than group I and the difference was statistically significant(p<0,001). We concluded that the results of bipolar prosthesis are functionally better than the unipolar prosthesis and the complication rate in bipolar prosthesis is lower.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Ana Bilim dalı’nda 1996 -2002 yılları arasında hemiartroplasti ile tedavi edilen ayrılmış femur boyun kırıklı 80 hastada uygulanan unipolar veya bipolar protezlerin sonuçları karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirildi. Unipolar protez uygulanan 40 olgu grup I, bipolar protez uygulanan 40 olgu ise grup II olarak ayrıldı. Grup I’de olguların 24’ü kadın, 16’sı erkek ve ortalama yaş 71 (45-97), grup II de hastaların 29’u kadın, 11’i erkek olup ortalama yaş 67 (47-87) idi. Her iki gruptaki olgular Garden sınıflandırmasına göre tiplendirildi. Hastaların sonuçları Harris kriterleri ve radyolojik incelemelere göre değerlendirildi. Sonuçta grup II’deki olgularda, grup I’e göre daha iyi fonksiyonel sonuçların elde edildiği ve aralarındaki farkın istatiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu saptandı ( p<0.001). Buna göre bipolar protezlerin unipolar tipe oranla komplikasyonlarının daha az ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarının ise daha iyi olduğu görüşüne varıldı.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-ileri-yas-ayrilmis-femur-boyun-kiriklarinda-unipolar-bipolar-protez-uygulamalari.pdf
  • 2
41-44
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Kyle RF. Fracture of the proksimal part of femur. J Bone Joint
Surg 1994; 76-A: 924-50.
2. Alpaslan B, Aykut M, Avkan M.C. Femur üst uç kırıklarının
cerrahi tedavi yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Ege R (Ed):Kalça
Cerrahisi ve Sorunları. 1.Baskı;Sayfa:978-9;1991. K. Bölük, ark.
44
3. Ege R. Travmatoloji (Kırıklar ve Eklem yaralanmaları) Cilt
3;Sayfa: 2186-234;1991.
4. Aharononot GB. Circumstances of falls causing hip fractures in
the elderly. Clin Orthop 1998; 348: 10-4.
5. Michael W. Chapman. Fractures of the Hip and Proximal
Femur. In: Chapman MW. editor. Chapman’s Orthopaedic
Surgery. Vol 1, 3 rd ed, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins; 2001. p 617-70.
6. DeLee JC. Fractures and Dislocations of the Hip. In: Rockwood
CA, Gren DP, Bucholz RW, Heckman JD. editors. Rockwood
& Green’s Fractrures in Adults. Vol 2, fourth edition,
Philadelphia: Lippincott –Raven; 1996. p: 1659-825.
7. Baumgaertner MR, Higgins TF. Femoral Neck Fractures. In
Bucholz RW, Heckman JD. editors. Rockwood &Green’s
Fractures in Adults. Vol 2, fifth edition, Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p: 1579-634.
8. Guyton JL. Fractures of Hip, Acetabulum, and Pelvis. In:
Canale TS editör. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. Vol 3,
Ninth Edition, St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 1997. p:2181-279.
9. Garvin KL, Mckilip TM. History and Phisical Examination. In:
Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE, editors. The Adult
Hip; Vol. 1 Firsth edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins; 1997. p: 315-32.
10. Cornell CN, Levine D. Unipolar versus bipolar hemiartroplasty
for the treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly. Clin
Orthop 1998; 348: 67-71.
11. Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Jagger C, Harper WM, Greg PJ.
Unipolar or bipolar prosthesis for displaced intracapsuler hip
fracture in octogenarions. J Bone Joint Surg 1996; 78-B: 391-4.
12. Hudson JI, Kenzora JE.Eight- year outcome associated with
clinical option in the management of femoral neck fracture.Clin
Orthop 1988; 348: 59-66.
13. Swiontkowski MF. Current concepts review. Intracapsuler
fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 1994; 76-A: 129-138.
14. Lausten GS, Vedel P, Nielsen PM. Fractures of the femoral
neck treated with a bipolar endoprosthesis. Clin Orthop 1987;
218: 63-7.
15. Aydın E. Femur üst uç kırıklarının Richard kompresyon çivisi
ile cerrahi tedavisi, Uzmanlık Tezi, U.Ü.T.F. Ortopedi Kliniği,
Bursa 1985.
16. Faster DE, Hunter JR. The direct lateral approach to hip for
arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 1987; 10: 274-9.
17. Hardinge K. The direct approach to hip.J Bone Joint Surg 1982;
64-B: 17-24.
18. Wetherell RG, Hinves BL. The hastings bipolar hemiartroplasty
for Subcapital fracture of the femoral neck. A 10-year
prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72-B: 788-93.
19. Philips TW. Thompson hemiarthroplasty and acetabular erosion.
J Bone Joint Surg 1989; 71-A: 913-7.
20. DeLee J, Ferrari A, Charnley J. Ectopic bone formation
following low friction arthroplasty of the hip.Clin Orthop 1976;
121: 53-7.
21. Nottage WM, Mc Master WC. Comparison of bipolar implants
with fixed-neck prosthesis in femoral neck fractures. Clin
Orthop 1990; 231:38-43.
22. Bochner RM, Pellicci PM, Lyden JP. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty
for fracture of femoral neck. J Bone Joint Surg 1988; 70-A:
1001-5.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com