Mostrar el registro sencillo

dc.contributor.authorAguado, H. J.
dc.contributor.authorCastillón-Bernal, P.
dc.contributor.authorTeixidor-Serra, J.
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Sánchez, Y.
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz-Vives, J. M.
dc.contributor.authorCamacho-Carrasco, P.
dc.contributor.authorJornet-Gibert, M.
dc.contributor.authorDíez Pérez, E. J.
dc.contributor.authorPérez Núñez, María Isabel 
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de Cantabriaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-09T14:36:36Z
dc.date.available2024-10-09T14:36:36Z
dc.date.issued2024-03-07
dc.identifier.issn1590-9921 PRINT
dc.identifier.issn1590-9999 ELECTRONIC
dc.identifier.issn1590-9921 LINKING
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10902/34185
dc.description.abstractBackground: The incidence of all periprosthetic fractures (PPF), which require complex surgical treatment associated with high morbidity and mortality, is predicted to increase. The evolving surgical management has created a knowledge gap regarding its impact on immediate outcomes. This study aimed to describe current management strategies for PPF and their repercussions for in-hospital outcomes as well as to evaluate their implications for the community. Methods: PIPPAS (Peri-Implant PeriProsthetic Survival Analysis) was a prospective multicentre observational study of 1387 PPF performed during 2021. Descriptive statistics summarized the epidemiology, fracture characteristics, management, and immediate outcomes. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was employed to evaluate potential predictors of in-hospital mortality, complications, discharge status, and weight-bearing restrictions. Results: The study encompassed 32 (2.3%) shoulder, 4 (0.3%) elbow, 751 (54.1%) hip, 590 (42.5%) knee, and 10 (0.7%) ankle PPF. Patients were older (median 84 years, IQR 77-89), frail [median clinical frailty scale (CFS) 5, IQR 3-6], presented at least one comorbidity [median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) 5, IQR 4-7], were community dwelling (81.8%), and had outdoor ambulation ability (65.6%). Femoral knee PPF were most frequently associated with uncemented femoral components, while femoral hip PPF occurred equally in cemented and uncemented stems. Patients were managed surgically (82%), with co-management (73.9%), through open approaches (85.9%) after almost 4 days (IQR, 51.9-153.6 h), with prosthesis revision performed in 33.8% of femoral hip PPF and 6.5% of femoral knee PPF. For half of the patients, the discharge instructions mandated weight-bearing restrictions. In-hospital mortality rates were 5.2% for all PPF and 6.2% for femoral hip PPF. Frailty, age > 84 years, mild cognitive impairment, CFS > 3, CCI > 3, and non-geriatric involvement were candidate predictors for in-hospital mortality, medical complications, and discharge to a nursing care facility. Management involving revision arthroplasty by experienced surgeons favoured full weight-bearing, while an open surgical approach favoured weight-bearing restrictions. Conclusions: Current arthroplasty fixation check and revision rates deviate from established guidelines, yet full weight-bearing is favoured. A surgical delay of over 100 h and a lack of geriatric co-management were related to in-hospital mortality and medical complications. This study recommends judicious hypoaggressive approaches. Addressing complications and individualizing the surgical strategy can lead to enhanced functional outcomes, alleviating the economic and social burdens upon hospital discharge. Level of Evidence Level IV case series.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding: The study was funded by grants from the AO Trauma Foundation (Spain) (grant number: 20–2041) and SACYL (Sanidad de Castilla y León) (grant number: GRS: 2371/A/21). No funding entity had a role in the design or conduct of the study, the collection or analyses of data, or manuscript preparation. Acknowledgments: We thank Dasha Gorbenko del Blanco (PhD, medical illustrator, dasha.blanco@ gmail.com) for her artwork when producing the fgures and graphical abstract for the PIPPAS study. Group authorship: “The PIPPAS Study group” The PIPPAS Study Group Memberses_ES
dc.format.extent17 p.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringeres_ES
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2024. Open Accesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.sourceJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology, 2024, 25(1), 13.es_ES
dc.subject.otherPeriprosthetic fracturees_ES
dc.subject.otherOutcomees_ES
dc.subject.otherMortalityes_ES
dc.subject.otherReplacementes_ES
dc.subject.otherFracture fxationes_ES
dc.subject.otherGeriatric co-managementes_ES
dc.subject.otherIncidencees_ES
dc.subject.otherEpidemiologyes_ES
dc.subject.otherManagementes_ES
dc.subject.otherFrailtyes_ES
dc.titleOptimizing periprosthetic fracture management and in-hospital outcome: insights from the PIPPAS multicentric study of 1387 cases in Spaines_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherVersionhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00746-6es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.DOI10.1186/s10195-024-00746-6
dc.type.versionacceptedVersiones_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo

© The Author(s) 2024. Open AccessExcepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como © The Author(s) 2024. Open Access