Department of Rehabilitation, Kitasato University School of Allied Health Sciences, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan.
Int Orthop. 2010 Aug;34(6):793-7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-0989-5. Epub 2010 Mar 19.
The purpose of this study was to compare two different types of fixation systems used to reattach the greater trochanter after revision or total hip arthroplasty. This is a retrospective review of the results of patients that were treated with the two systems. We reviewed the clinical and radiological records of 35 hips with the Dall-Miles cable grip system (DMCGS) and 42 hips with the pin-sleeve system (PSS); follow-up averaged 24 months (range, 4-54) and 30 months (range, 11-42), respectively. The incidences of unsatisfactory clinical and radiological results in the PSS group was less than half that in the DMCGS group. Significant differences were found between the groups with respect to discomfort, tenderness, pain on motion, cable fragmentation, and bone absorption. Compared with the DMCGS, these results suggest the PSS could be the instrument of choice for re-attachment of the greater trochanter in hip arthroplasty.
本研究旨在比较两种不同类型的固定系统,用于在髋关节翻修或全髋关节置换后重新固定大转子。这是对两种系统治疗患者结果的回顾性研究。我们回顾了 35 例采用 Dall-Miles 钢缆夹系统(DMCGS)和 42 例采用钉套系统(PSS)治疗的患者的临床和影像学记录;随访平均时间分别为 24 个月(范围,4-54)和 30 个月(范围,11-42)。PSS 组的临床和影像学结果不满意的发生率低于 DMCGS 组的一半。两组之间在不适、压痛、活动时疼痛、钢缆碎裂和骨吸收方面存在显著差异。与 DMCGS 相比,这些结果表明 PSS 可能是髋关节置换中重新固定大转子的首选器械。