Matthies A, Underwood R, Cann P, Ilo K, Nawaz Z, Skinner J, Hart A J
Department of Musculoskeletal Surgery, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Mar;93(3):307-14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B3.25551.
This study compared component wear rates and pre-revision blood metal ions levels in two groups of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: hip resurfacing and modular total hip replacement (THR). There was no significant difference in the median rate of linear wear between the groups for both acetabular (p = 0.4633) and femoral (p = 0.0872) components. There was also no significant difference in the median linear wear rates when failed hip resurfacing and modular THR hips of the same type (ASR and Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR)) were compared. Unlike other studies of well-functioning hips, there was no significant difference in pre-revision blood metal ion levels between hip resurfacing and modular THR. Edge loading was common in both groups, but more common in the resurfacing group (67%) than in the modular group (57%). However, this was not significant (p = 0.3479). We attribute this difference to retention of the neck in resurfacing of the hip, leading to impingement-type edge loading. This was supported by visual evidence of impingement on the femur. These findings show that failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and modular THRs have similar component wear rates and are both associated with raised pre-revision blood levels of metal ions.
本研究比较了两组失败的金属对金属髋关节置换术(即髋关节表面置换术和模块化全髋关节置换术(THR))的部件磨损率和翻修术前血液中的金属离子水平。两组髋臼部件(p = 0.4633)和股骨部件(p = 0.0872)的线性磨损率中位数无显著差异。当比较同一类型(ASR和伯明翰髋关节表面置换术(BHR))的失败髋关节表面置换术和模块化THR髋关节的线性磨损率中位数时,也没有显著差异。与其他关于功能良好髋关节的研究不同,髋关节表面置换术和模块化THR翻修术前血液中的金属离子水平没有显著差异。边缘负荷在两组中都很常见,但在表面置换组(67%)比模块化组(57%)更常见。然而,这并无统计学意义(p = 0.3479)。我们将这种差异归因于髋关节表面置换术中颈部的保留,导致撞击型边缘负荷。股骨上撞击的视觉证据支持了这一点。这些发现表明,失败的金属对金属髋关节表面置换术和模块化THR具有相似的部件磨损率,并且都与翻修术前血液中金属离子水平升高有关。