Suppr超能文献

未骨水泥固定和骨水泥固定初次全髋关节置换术:瑞典髋关节置换登记研究。

Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.

出版信息

Acta Orthop. 2010 Feb;81(1):34-41. doi: 10.3109/17453671003685400.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Since the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Sweden, both components have most commonly been cemented. A decade ago the frequency of uncemented fixation started to increase, and this change in practice has continued. We therefore analyzed implant survival of cemented and uncemented THA, and whether the modes of failure differ between the two methods of fixation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 who received either totally cemented or totally uncemented THA were identified (n = 170,413). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with revision of any component, and for any reason, as the endpoints was performed. Cox regression models were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for revision for various reasons, adjusted for sex, age, and primary diagnosis.

RESULTS

Revision-free 10-year survival of uncemented THA was lower than that of cemented THA (85% vs. 94%, p < 0.001). No age or diagnosis groups benefited from the use of uncemented fixation. Cox regression analysis confirmed that uncemented THA had a higher risk of revision for any reason (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4-1.6) and for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.5, CI: 1.3-1.6). Uncemented cup components had a higher risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.6-2.0), whereas uncemented stem components had a lower risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.4, CI: 0.3-0.5) when compared to cemented components. Uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 postoperative years than cemented stems (RR = 8, CI: 5-14). The 5 most common uncemented cups had no increased risk of revision for any reason when compared with the 5 most commonly used cemented cups (RR = 0.9, CI: 0.6-1.1). There was no significant difference in the risk of revision due to infection between cemented and uncemented THA.

INTERPRETATION

Survival of uncemented THA is inferior to that of cemented THA, and this appears to be mainly related to poorer performance of uncemented cups. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems; however, unrecognized intraoperative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. The risk of revision of the most common uncemented cup designs is similar to that of cemented cups, indicating that some of the problems with uncemented cup fixation may have been solved.

摘要

背景与目的

自全髋关节置换术(THA)在瑞典引入以来,大多数情况下使用的都是骨水泥固定。大约 10 年前,非骨水泥固定的使用频率开始增加,这种实践模式的改变仍在继续。因此,我们分析了骨水泥固定和非骨水泥固定 THA 的植入物存活率,以及两种固定方式的失效模式是否存在差异。

患者与方法

我们确定了 1992 年至 2007 年期间在瑞典髋关节置换登记处登记的所有接受完全骨水泥固定或完全非骨水泥固定 THA 的患者(n=170413)。使用任何组件的修订版和任何原因的修订作为终点进行 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析。使用 Cox 回归模型计算各种原因的修订风险比(RR),并根据性别、年龄和主要诊断进行调整。

结果

非骨水泥固定 THA 的 10 年无修正存活率低于骨水泥固定 THA(85%对 94%,p<0.001)。没有任何年龄或诊断组受益于非骨水泥固定。Cox 回归分析证实,非骨水泥固定 THA 的任何原因(RR=1.5,95%CI:1.4-1.6)和无菌性松动(RR=1.5,CI:1.3-1.6)的修正风险更高。非骨水泥杯组件因无菌性松动而进行杯修正的风险更高(RR=1.8,CI:1.6-2.0),而非骨水泥柄组件因无菌性松动而进行柄修正的风险更低(RR=0.4,CI:0.3-0.5),与骨水泥组件相比。非骨水泥柄在术后 2 年内因假体周围骨折而进行翻修的频率高于骨水泥柄(RR=8,CI:5-14)。与最常用的 5 种骨水泥杯相比,5 种最常见的非骨水泥杯在任何原因的翻修风险方面均无增加(RR=0.9,CI:0.6-1.1)。骨水泥固定和非骨水泥固定 THA 的感染修正风险无显著差异。

解释

非骨水泥固定 THA 的存活率低于骨水泥固定 THA,这似乎主要与非骨水泥杯的性能较差有关。非骨水泥柄的性能优于骨水泥柄;然而,术中未识别的股骨骨折可能是非骨水泥柄早期失效的一个重要原因。最常见的非骨水泥杯设计的修正风险与骨水泥杯相似,这表明非骨水泥杯固定的一些问题可能已经得到解决。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bc4e/2856202/6217247d24f0/ORT-1745-3674-81-034-g001.jpg

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