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

30. ULUSAL TÜRK ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ KONGRESİ, Antalya, Türkiye, 9 - 14 Kasım 2021, ss.57, (Özet Bildiri)

EVALUATION OF PATIENTS’ POSTOPERATIVE RESULTS FOR HIP

FRACTURE WITH COMPUTERIZED DYNAMIC POSTUROGRAPHY: PFN VS.

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.