Kalça Kırığı Nedeniyle Ameliyat Edilen Hastaların Ameliyat Sonrası Sonuçlarının Bilgisayarlı Dinamik Postürografi ile Değerlendirilmesi: PFN ve HA Karşılaştırması

Creative Commons License

Taşkın E., Özşahin M. K., Şeker A.

European Regional Congress 2024, İstanbul, Türkiye, 10 - 12 Ekim 2024, ss.38, (Özet Bildiri)

  • Yayın Türü: Bildiri / Özet Bildiri
  • Basıldığı Şehir: İstanbul
  • Basıldığı Ülke: Türkiye
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.38
  • İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa Adresli: Evet

Özet

EVALUATION OF PATIENTS’ POSTOPERATIVE RESULTS FOR HIP FRACTURE WITH COMPUTERIZED DYNAMIC POSTUROGRAPHY: PFN VS. HA

 Ersin Taşkın1,2 , Mahmut Kürşat Özşahin1 , Muhammed Yusuf Afacan1 , Melda Acar3 , Eyyup Kara3 , Ali Şeker1 1 Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2 Duzici State Hospital 3 Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Department of Audiology

Aims:

Proximal femoral nailing (PFN) and hip arthroplasty (HA) are the two most often utilized surgical procedures for treating hip fractures in older patients. The postoperative postural balance and functional outcomes of patients may be significantly influenced by the technical distinctions between PFN and HA. This will influence the surgeon’s preferred course of therapy. To examine the functional outcomes of patients treated with PFN and HA following a hip fracture, this study used computerized dynamic posturography (CDP). The aim of that study was to evaluate how the two treatment modalities affected patients’ postoperative balance, postural stability, and functional rehabilitation.

 

Methods:  

A total of 26 patients who underwent proximal femoral surgery (15 patients PFN [58%] and 11 patients HA [42%]) due to hip fractures were evaluated at least 12 months postoperatively. They were tested by direct radiographs, hip joint examinations, Harris hip score (HHS), and CDP.

 

Results:

 Twelve (46%) of 26 patients were male and 14 (54%) were female. The mean age of the participants in the study was 67.9±14.2 years. The mean follow-up period was 24 (12–44) months. The average Harris score of PFN group was 79.3 (46.8–100) points and HA group was 83.7 (61.9–99.9) points. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of Harris Score (p=0.54). The average of the mixed value of the balance results obtained with CDP (the Composite score) for PFN group was 70.5 (56–79) points, and for HA group was 71.9 (56–83) points. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the Composite Score (p=0.47). Accordingly, 12 (80%) of the patients who underwent PFN had good results and 3 (20%) of them had bad results. Eight (72.7%) of those who underwent HA had good results and 3 (27.3%) had bad results. There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.66).

 Conclusion:

Comparing the composite score for balance results and HHS results for rehabilitation with the data of the patients who underwent PFN and HA, there was no statistically significant difference between these two techniques in terms of postural stability and balance as a result of CDP examination.