Browsing by Author "Oral, Melih"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    The Push-Through Total Femoral Prosthesis for Revision of a Total Hip or Knee Replacement With Extreme Bone Loss
    (Sage Publications Ltd, 2024) Bakircioglu, Sancar; Bulut, Abdulkadir M.; Oral, Melih; Caglar, Omur; Atilla, Bulent; Tokgozoglu, A. Mazhar
    Purpose: The aim of the present study was to assess outcomes of using the push-through total femoral prothesis (PTTF) for revision total hip replacement with extreme bone loss.Methods: 10 consecutive patients who received PTTF between 2012 and 2018 for revision hip arthroplasty were included in the study. Primary functional outcomes were assessed using Harris Hip Score (HHS), Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores. Range of motion, complications, and ambulatory status were also recorded to assess secondary outcomes.Results: 2 of 10 patients underwent surgery with PTTF for both knee and hip arthroplasty revision. The mean time between index surgery and PTTF was 15 years (3-32 yrs). Acetabular components were revised in 6 of 10 patients during PTTF application. After a mean follow-up of 5.9 years, hip dislocations occurred in 3 patients. All of the dislocated hips were ones with retained conventional non-constrained acetabular bearings. Patient satisfaction was high (MSTS: 67%, HHS: 61.2%, TESS 64.6%) despite high re-operation rate (40%) and minor postoperative problems.Conclusions: PTTF should be considered for hip and knee arthroplasty revision procedures in patients with an extreme bone defect. Consistent usage of constrained liners should be considered to avoid hip dislocation, which was our main problem following the procedure.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    Single Versus 3-Incision Triple Pelvic Osteotomy: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Results
    (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2024) Kolaç, Ulaş Can; Gazeloglu, Ali Okan; Oral, Melih; Yilmaz, Engin Turkay; Bakırcıoğlu, Sancar; Aksoy, Mehmet Cemalettin; Yılmaz, Guney
    Background:Triple pelvic osteotomy (TPO) is indicated when the anatomic and functional realignment of the hip joint is needed. Although the traditional approach for TPO involves a separate incision for ischial cut, there has been a trend for single-incision TPO in recent years. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiologic results of 2 different approaches.Methods:Forty-two hips of 39 patients treated using TPO with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up were included in our cohort. Demographics, perioperative, and radiologic parameters were evaluated. Harris Hip Score and International Hip Outcome Tool were used for clinical evaluation.Results:A single anterolateral incision approach was used in 18 hips (17 patients), whereas a 3-incision approach was used in 24 hips (22 patients). The mean follow-up was 4.7 years in the 3-incision group and 3.8 years in the single-incision group (P=0.43), with mean surgery age at 8.7 years (range, 5.4 to 12) for single-incision and 9.7 years (range, 7.7 to 11.7) for 3e-incision (P=0.22). There were no significant differences observed between the 2 groups concerning radiographic measurements, complications, and functional scores. The mean surgical time was 118.6 minutes in the single-incision group and 97.9 minutes in 3-incision group (P=0.036). Mean intraoperative blood loss was 181.7 ml in the single-incision group and 243.4 ml in 3-incision group (P=0.028). Three-incision group demonstrated significantly higher intraoperative blood loss, leading to lower hemoglobin values (P=0.042).Conclusion:The single-incision TPO demonstrated similar outcomes compared with the traditional 3-incision approach in terms of radiologic correction and functional improvement. The single-incision technique exhibited advantages such as reduced intraoperative blood loss and potential benefit of decreased pain due to fewer scars. However, it required a longer surgical time compared with the 3-incision approach. Surgeons should consider patient-specific factors and their expertise when selecting the most appropriate approach for each case.Level of Evidence:Level III-retrospective comparative series.