Suppr超能文献

髋臼骨折后非骨水泥型髋臼重建

Cementless acetabular reconstruction after acetabular fracture.

作者信息

Bellabarba C, Berger R A, Bentley C D, Quigley L R, Jacobs J J, Rosenberg A G, Sheinkop M B, Galante J O

机构信息

Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA.

出版信息

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jun;83(6):868-76. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200106000-00008.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty in patients with posttraumatic arthritis has produced results inferior to those in patients with nontraumatic arthritis. The use of cementless acetabular reconstruction, however, has not been extensively studied in this clinical context. Our purpose was to compare the intermediate-term results of total hip arthroplasty with a cementless acetabular component in patients with posttraumatic arthritis with those of the same procedure in patients with nontraumatic arthritis. We also compared the results of arthroplasty in patients who had had prior operative treatment of their acetabular fracture with those in patients who had had prior closed treatment of their acetabular fracture.

METHODS

Thirty total hip arthroplasties were performed with use of a cementless hemispheric, fiber-metal-mesh-coated acetabular component for the treatment of posttraumatic osteoarthritis after acetabular fracture. The median interval between the fracture and the arthroplasty was thirty-seven months (range, eight to 444 months). The average age at the time of the arthroplasty was fifty-one years (range, twenty-six to eighty-six years), and the average duration of follow-up was sixty-three months (range, twenty-four to 140 months). Fifteen patients had had prior open reduction and internal fixation of their acetabular fracture (open-reduction group), and fifteen patients had had closed treatment of the acetabular fracture (closed-treatment group). The results of these thirty hip reconstructions were compared with the intermediate-term results of 204 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties with cementless acetabular reconstruction in patients with nontraumatic arthritis.

RESULTS

Operative time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), and perioperative transfusion requirements (p < 0.001) were greater in the patients with posttraumatic arthritis than they were in the patients with nontraumatic arthritis. Of the patients with posttraumatic arthritis, those who had had open reduction and internal fixation of their acetabular fracture had a significantly longer index procedure (p = 0.01), greater blood loss (p = 0.008), and a higher transfusion requirement (p = 0.049) than those in whom the fracture had been treated by closed methods. Eight of the fifteen patients with a previous open reduction and internal fixation required an elevated acetabular liner compared with one of the fifteen patients who had been treated by closed means (p = 0.005). Two of the fifteen patients with a previous open reduction and internal fixation required bone-grafting of acetabular defects compared with seven of the fifteen patients treated by closed means (p = 0.04). The thirty patients treated for posttraumatic arthritis had an average preoperative Harris hip score of 41 points, which increased to 88 points at the time of follow-up; there was no significant difference between the open-reduction and closed-treatment groups (p = 0.39). Twenty-seven patients (90%) had a good or excellent result. There were no dislocations or deep infections. The Kaplan-Meier ten-year survival rate, with revision or radiographic loosening as the end point, was 97%. These results were similar to those of the patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty for nontraumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

The intermediate-term clinical results of total hip arthroplasty with cementless acetabular reconstruction for posttraumatic osteoarthritis after acetabular fracture were similar to those after the same procedure for nontraumatic arthritis, regardless of whether the acetabular fracture had been internally fixed initially. However, total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture was a longer procedure with greater blood loss, especially in patients with previous open reduction and internal fixation. Previous open reduction and internal fixation predisposed the hip to more intraoperative instability but less bone deficiency.

摘要

背景

创伤后关节炎患者行全髋关节置换术的效果逊于非创伤性关节炎患者。然而,在这种临床情况下,非骨水泥髋臼重建的应用尚未得到广泛研究。我们的目的是比较创伤后关节炎患者行全髋关节置换术并使用非骨水泥髋臼组件与非创伤性关节炎患者行相同手术的中期结果。我们还比较了髋臼骨折曾接受手术治疗的患者与髋臼骨折曾接受闭合治疗的患者的关节置换结果。

方法

采用非骨水泥半球形、纤维金属网涂层髋臼组件对30例髋臼骨折后创伤性骨关节炎患者进行全髋关节置换术。骨折与关节置换之间的中位间隔时间为37个月(范围为8至444个月)。关节置换时的平均年龄为51岁(范围为26至86岁),平均随访时间为63个月(范围为24至140个月)。15例患者曾接受髋臼骨折切开复位内固定术(切开复位组),15例患者曾接受髋臼骨折闭合治疗(闭合治疗组)。将这30例髋关节重建的结果与204例连续接受非骨水泥髋臼重建的原发性全髋关节置换术治疗的非创伤性关节炎患者的中期结果进行比较。

结果

创伤后关节炎患者的手术时间(p < 0.001)、失血量(p < 0.001)和围手术期输血需求(p < 0.001)均高于非创伤性关节炎患者。在创伤后关节炎患者中,髋臼骨折接受切开复位内固定术的患者与骨折接受闭合治疗的患者相比,手术时间显著更长(p = 0.01)、失血量更大(p = 0.008)、输血需求更高(p = 0.049)。15例曾接受切开复位内固定术的患者中有8例需要增加髋臼内衬,而15例接受闭合治疗的患者中有1例需要增加髋臼内衬(p = 0.005)。15例曾接受切开复位内固定术的患者中有2例需要对髋臼缺损进行植骨,而15例接受闭合治疗的患者中有7例需要植骨(p = 0.04)。30例接受创伤后关节炎治疗的患者术前Harris髋关节评分平均为41分,随访时增至88分;切开复位组与闭合治疗组之间无显著差异(p = 0.39)。27例患者(90%)结果良好或优秀。无脱位或深部感染。以翻修或影像学松动为终点的Kaplan-Meier十年生存率为97%。这些结果与接受原发性全髋关节置换术治疗非创伤性关节炎的患者的结果相似。

结论

髋臼骨折后创伤性骨关节炎行全髋关节置换术并采用非骨水泥髋臼重建的中期临床结果与非创伤性关节炎行相同手术的结果相似,无论髋臼骨折最初是否接受内固定。然而,髋臼骨折后的全髋关节置换术手术时间更长,失血量更大,尤其是在曾接受切开复位内固定术的患者中。先前的切开复位内固定术使髋关节术中更易出现不稳定,但骨缺损较少。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验