Wang Ching-Jen, Wang Feng-Sheng, Huang Chung-Cheng, Yang Kuender D, Weng Lin-Hsiu, Huang Hsuan-Ying
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Medical Center, 123 Ta-Pei Road, Niao-Sung Hsiang, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Nov;87(11):2380-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00174.
There is continuing controversy regarding the optimal treatment for patients with symptomatic early-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head. We compared the results of noninvasive treatment with extracorporeal shock waves with those of core decompression and bone-grafting in similar groups of patients.
Patients with stage-I, II, or III osteonecrosis were randomly assigned to be treated either with shock waves or with core decompression and nonvascularized fibular grafting. The shock-wave group consisted of twenty-three patients (twenty-nine hips), and the surgical group consisted of twenty-five patients (twenty-eight hips). The patients in the two groups had similar demographic characteristics, duration and stage of disease, and duration of follow-up. The patients in the shock-wave group received a single treatment with 6000 impulses of shock waves at 28 kV to the affected hip. The evaluation parameters included clinical assessment of pain with a visual analog pain scale, Harris hip scores, and an assessment of activities of daily living and work capacity. Radiographic assessment was performed with serial plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging.
Before treatment, the two groups had similar pain and Harris hip scores. At an average of twenty-five months after treatment, the pain and Harris hip scores in the shock-wave group were significantly improved compared with the pretreatment scores (p < 0.001). In this group, 79% of the hips were improved, 10% were unchanged, and 10% were worse. Of the hips treated with a nonvascularized fibular graft, 29% were improved, 36% were unchanged, and 36% were worse. In the shock-wave group, imaging studies showed regression of five of the thirteen lesions that had been designated as stage I or II before treatment and no regression of a stage-III lesion. Two stage-II and two stage-III lesions progressed. In the surgical group, four lesions regressed and fifteen (of the nineteen graded as stage I or II) progressed. The remaining nine lesions were unchanged.
Extracorporeal shock-wave treatment appeared to be more effective than core decompression and nonvascularized fibular grafting in patients with early-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Long-term results are needed to determine whether the effect of this novel method of treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head endures.
对于有症状的早期股骨头坏死患者的最佳治疗方法,目前仍存在争议。我们比较了体外冲击波无创治疗与髓芯减压及植骨术在相似患者群体中的治疗结果。
将I期、II期或III期骨坏死患者随机分为两组,分别接受冲击波治疗或髓芯减压及非血管化腓骨移植术治疗。冲击波治疗组有23例患者(29髋),手术治疗组有25例患者(28髋)。两组患者在人口统计学特征、疾病持续时间和分期以及随访时间方面相似。冲击波治疗组的患者接受单次治疗,对患髋施加28 kV的6000次冲击波脉冲。评估参数包括采用视觉模拟疼痛量表对疼痛进行临床评估、Harris髋关节评分,以及对日常生活活动能力和工作能力的评估。采用系列X线平片和磁共振成像进行影像学评估。
治疗前,两组的疼痛和Harris髋关节评分相似。治疗后平均25个月时与治疗前评分相比,冲击波治疗组的疼痛和Harris髋关节评分显著改善(p < 0.001)。在该组中,79%的髋部病情改善,10%无变化,10%病情恶化。接受非血管化腓骨移植治疗的髋部中,29%病情改善,36%无变化,36%病情恶化。在冲击波治疗组,影像学研究显示,治疗前被定为I期或II期的13处病变中有5处病变有所消退,III期病变无消退。2处II期和2处III期病变病情进展。在手术治疗组,4处病变消退,15处(19处I期或II期分级病变中的)病变病情进展。其余9处病变无变化。
对于早期股骨头坏死患者,体外冲击波治疗似乎比髓芯减压及非血管化腓骨移植术更有效。需要长期结果来确定这种治疗股骨头坏死新方法的疗效是否持久。