Francés Alberto, Moro Enrique, Cebrian Juan-Luis, Marco Fernando, García-López Antonio, Serfaty David, López-Durán Luis
Servicio de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Int Orthop. 2007 Aug;31(4):457-64. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0211-y. Epub 2007 Feb 6.
A retrospective clinical review was done on 54 revision hip patients. Radiological analysis examined the Gross and AAOS classifications, stem position, cement mantles, allograft and evolution (subsidence, resorption and remodelling). The Harris Hip score was used for clinical assessment. We used bone bank allograft and a polished non-collared stem LD. The follow-up period was 60.5 months (19.4-152.4), and the average age 68.5 (range: 22-85). There were 21 females and 33 males. The surgical approach was: lateral (5.56%) posterior (91.4%); trochanteric osteotomy: 25.9%; associated acetabular revision: 59.3%; previous operations: 1.9. The preoperative Harris score was 35 (28-40) and rose to 81 (50-99) postoperatively. The stem alignment was neutral (44.44%), varus (38.89%) and valgus (16.67%). The femur/stem diameter relationship was 1.8 (1.2-2.7). There were no changes in stem alignment in 94.4%. An adequate cement mantle was: proximal zone (61.1%), medium zone (27.8%) and distal zone (16.7%). The rate of any subsidence was 38.9% (progressive: 12.96%). The rate of complications was 40.7% and included periprosthetic fracture: 14.8%; superficial infection: 1.9%; deep late infection: 1.9%; dislocation: 3.7%; heterotopic ossification: 13%. The rate of new stem revision was 16.6%. The clinical and radiological success rate was 77.78%. A greater incidence of revisions has been found in stem malalignment, progressive subsidence, a Harris increase of <20 points, allograft resorption, small diameter stems and inadequate cement mantle. We recommend hard impaction and a cement mantle of at least 2 mm. Non-progressive subsidence does not increase stem loosening. The technique has been useful in recovering bone stock in a severely defective femur and achieves a stable reconstruction. The level of evidence was therapeutic study level III-2 (retrospective cohort study; see the instructions to the authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence).
对54例髋关节翻修患者进行了回顾性临床研究。影像学分析检查了Gross和AAOS分类、假体柄位置、骨水泥壳、同种异体骨以及演变情况(下沉、吸收和重塑)。采用Harris髋关节评分进行临床评估。我们使用了骨库同种异体骨和一种抛光无领的LD假体柄。随访期为60.5个月(19.4 - 152.4个月),平均年龄68.5岁(范围:22 - 85岁)。其中女性21例,男性33例。手术入路为:外侧(5.56%),后侧(91.4%);转子截骨:25.9%;联合髋臼翻修:59.3%;既往手术次数:1.9次。术前Harris评分为35分(28 - 40分),术后升至81分(50 - 99分)。假体柄对线为中立位(44.44%)、内翻(38.89%)和外翻(16.67%)。股骨/假体柄直径比为1.8(1.2 - 2.7)。94.4%的患者假体柄对线无变化。骨水泥壳合适情况为:近端区域(61.1%)、中间区域(27.8%)和远端区域(16.7%)。任何下沉发生率为38.9%(进行性下沉:12.96%)。并发症发生率为40.7%,包括假体周围骨折:14.8%;浅表感染:1.9%;深部迟发性感染:1.9%;脱位:3.7%;异位骨化:13%。新的假体柄翻修率为16.6%。临床和影像学成功率为77.78%。在假体柄排列不齐、进行性下沉、Harris评分增加<20分、同种异体骨吸收、假体柄直径小以及骨水泥壳不合适的情况下,翻修发生率更高。我们建议采用强力打压植骨和至少2毫米厚的骨水泥壳。非进行性下沉不会增加假体柄松动。该技术在严重股骨缺损的骨量恢复中很有用,并实现了稳定的重建。证据级别为治疗性研究III - 2级(回顾性队列研究;有关证据级别的完整描述见作者指南)。