Wembridge Kevin R, Hamer Andrew J
Lower Limb Arthroplasty Unit, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jan;21(1):92-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.04.010.
Pressurization techniques are used to improve the cement/bone interface at hip arthroplasty. Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) cement restrictors leave particulate debris at insertion; biodegradable restrictors may therefore be preferable. We compared the migration behavior of 2 such cement restrictors. A prospective randomized study with 16 patients per group using either a UHMWPE or a biodegradable restrictor was performed. Comparison of intraoperative measurements and postoperative radiographs determined restrictor migration. Mean migration was 3.0 vs 0.5 cm (biodegradable vs UHMWPE, Mann-Whitney U test, P < .002); median, 2.9 vs 0.4; SD, 1.8 vs 0.4; and range, 0.6 to 6.4 vs 0 to 1.2. Our study found that the biodegradable restrictor allowed significantly more migration than the UHMWPE restrictor. Although there are theoretical advantages in avoiding UHMWPE restrictors, the current biodegradable alternative is actually inferior and its use cannot be endorsed.
在髋关节置换术中,加压技术用于改善骨水泥与骨的界面。超高分子量聚乙烯(UHMWPE)骨水泥限制器在植入时会留下颗粒碎片;因此,可生物降解的限制器可能更可取。我们比较了两种此类骨水泥限制器的移位情况。进行了一项前瞻性随机研究,每组16例患者,分别使用UHMWPE限制器或可生物降解限制器。通过术中测量和术后X线片比较来确定限制器的移位情况。平均移位分别为3.0 cm和0.5 cm(可生物降解与UHMWPE,曼-惠特尼U检验,P < 0.002);中位数分别为2.9 cm和0.4 cm;标准差分别为1.8 cm和0.4 cm;范围分别为0.6至6.4 cm和0至1.2 cm。我们的研究发现,可生物降解限制器的移位明显多于UHMWPE限制器。尽管避免使用UHMWPE限制器在理论上有优势,但目前的可生物降解替代品实际上较差,不能推荐使用。