Subramanian Sivaraman, Jain Kaushik D, Sreekumar Ramakutty, Fox Una, Hemmady Mukesh, Hodgkinson John
Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, UK.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010 Jan;92(1):27-30. doi: 10.1308/003588410X12518836439966.
Extensive bone loss associated with revision hip surgery is a significant orthopaedic challenge. Acetabular reconstruction with the use of impaction bone grafting and a cemented polyethylene cup is a reliable and durable technique in revision situations with cavitatory acetabular bone defects. Some use cancellous graft alone whilst others morselise the whole femoral head after removal of articular cartilage. This paper asks, if it really necessary to use pure cancellous graft?
Forty-two acetabular revisions using impacted morselized bone graft without removal of articular cartilage and a cemented cup were studied retrospectively. The mean follow-up was 3 years (range, 2-5.6 years). Clinical and radiographic assessment was made using the Oxford hip score, Hodgkinson's criteria (1988) for socket loosening and the Gie classification (1993) for evaluation of allograft consolidation and remodelling.
Forty (95%) sockets were considered radiologically stable (type 0, 1, 2 demarcations) and two (5%) sockets were radiologically loose (Type 3 demarcation). There was no socket migration in our series. Twenty-seven(64%) cases showed good trabecular remodelling (grade 3). Twelve (29%) cases showed trabecular incorporation (grade 2). Only three (7%) cases showed poor allograft incorporation (grade 1). Average pre-operative Oxford hip score was 41 and postoperative hip score was 27. There have been no socket re-revisions (100% survival) at an average of 3 years.
Early radiological and clinical survival results with retaining articular cartilage of femoral head allografts are similar and comparable to other major studies for acetabular impaction bone grafting in revisions. Minimal loss of allograft mass is 40% in obtaining pure cancellous graft. When there is a limited supply and demand of allograft, saving up to 40% of the material is a valuable and cost-effective use of scarce resources.
与髋关节翻修手术相关的广泛骨质流失是一项重大的骨科挑战。在髋臼存在空洞性骨缺损的翻修情况下,使用打压植骨和骨水泥聚乙烯杯进行髋臼重建是一种可靠且持久的技术。一些人仅使用松质骨移植,而另一些人则在去除关节软骨后将整个股骨头粉碎。本文提出疑问,真的有必要使用纯松质骨移植吗?
回顾性研究了42例使用未去除关节软骨的打压碎骨移植和骨水泥杯进行的髋臼翻修病例。平均随访时间为3年(范围为2至5.6年)。使用牛津髋关节评分、霍奇金森(1988年)的髋臼松动标准以及吉氏分类(1993年)对临床和影像学进行评估,以评估同种异体骨的融合和重塑情况。
40个(95%)髋臼在放射学上被认为稳定(0、1、2级分界),2个(5%)髋臼在放射学上松动(3级分界)。在我们的系列病例中没有髋臼移位情况。27例(64%)显示出良好的小梁重塑(3级)。12例(29%)显示出小梁融合(2级)。只有3例(7%)显示出同种异体骨融合不良(1级)。术前平均牛津髋关节评分为41分,术后髋关节评分为27分。平均3年时没有髋臼再次翻修情况(100%生存率)。
保留股骨头同种异体骨关节软骨的早期放射学和临床生存结果与其他关于髋臼打压植骨翻修的主要研究相似且具有可比性。获取纯松质骨移植时同种异体骨量的最小损失为40%。当同种异体骨供需有限时,节省高达40%的材料是对稀缺资源的一种有价值且具有成本效益的利用方式。