Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476A, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Apr;469(4):1016-23. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1673-1.
Revision of the infected hip arthroplasty with major bone loss is difficult. Attempts to restore bone stock with structural allograft are controversial.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed the (1) reinfection rate; (2) rerevision rate; (3) radiographic graft union, resorption, and implant migration; (4) Harris hip scores at 1 year and at last followup compared with before surgery; and (5) other major complications associated with the use of bulk structural allograft to treat massive bone loss in infected hip arthroplasty.
We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who underwent two-stage revision arthroplasty using structural allograft to treat massive bone defects in infected hip arthroplasty. There were 17 proximal femoral grafts, three acetabular major column grafts, two acetabular minor column grafts, and 10 cortical strut grafts used. Five patients had combinations of two allografts. The minimum followup was 1.1 years (mean, 8.2 years; range, 1.1-16.8 years).
One of 27 patients had reinfection. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 93% at 10 years with rerevision for aseptic loosening as the end point. Radiographically, three patients had nonunion at the graft-host junction. All patients except two had graft resorption, of which all were mild except two, which were severe. Three patients had implant migration. The mean modified Harris hip scores were 39.2 points (range, 25-60) preoperatively, 67.3 points (range, 40-91) at 1-year followup, and 70.3 points (range, 46-81) at last followup. Other major complications included one patient with dislocation and one patient with transient sciatic nerve injury.
Based on our data, we believe the use of structural allografts is a reasonable option for treating massive bone loss in infected hip arthroplasties.
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
感染性髋关节翻修术伴大块骨缺损较为困难。尝试使用结构性同种异体移植物来恢复骨质存量存在争议。
问题/目的:我们评估了(1)再感染率;(2)再次翻修率;(3)影像学移植物愈合、吸收和植入物迁移;(4)与术前相比,1 年和末次随访时的 Harris 髋关节评分;以及(5)使用大块结构性同种异体移植物治疗感染性髋关节置换术后大块骨缺损相关的其他主要并发症。
我们回顾性分析了 27 例接受两阶段翻修术的患者,使用结构性同种异体移植物治疗感染性髋关节置换术后大块骨缺损。其中 17 例为股骨近端移植物,3 例为髋臼大柱移植物,2 例为髋臼小柱移植物,10 例为皮质骨支柱移植物。5 例患者有两种移植物的组合。最低随访时间为 1.1 年(平均 8.2 年;范围,1.1-16.8 年)。
27 例患者中有 1 例发生再感染。以无菌性松动为终点的 Kaplan-Meier 生存率为 10 年时 93%。影像学上,3 例患者在移植物-宿主交界处存在不愈合。除 2 例外,所有患者均有移植物吸收,除 2 例为重度外,其余均为轻度。3 例患者有植入物迁移。改良 Harris 髋关节评分平均为术前 39.2 分(范围,25-60 分),术后 1 年随访时为 67.3 分(范围,40-91 分),末次随访时为 70.3 分(范围,46-81 分)。其他主要并发症包括 1 例患者脱位和 1 例患者坐骨神经一过性损伤。
根据我们的数据,我们认为使用结构性同种异体移植物是治疗感染性髋关节置换术后大块骨缺损的合理选择。
IV 级,治疗性研究。欲获取完整的证据水平描述,请查看作者指南。