Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc, 7277 Smith's Mill Road, Suite 200, New Albany, OH 43054, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Feb;470(2):450-61. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2068-7.
While short-stem design is not a new concept, interest has surged with increasing utilization of less invasive techniques. Short stems are easier to insert through small incisions. Reliable long-term results including functional improvement, pain relief, and implant survival have been reported with standard tapered stems, but will a short taper perform as well?
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared short, flat-wedge, tapered, broach-only femoral stems to standard-length, double-tapered, ream and broach femoral stems in terms of intraoperative complications, short-term survivorship, and pain and function scores.
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 606 patients who had 658 THAs using a less invasive direct lateral approach from January 2006 to March 2008. Three hundred sixty patients (389 hips) had standard-length stems and 246 (269 hips) had short stems. Age averaged 63 years, and body mass index averaged 30.7 kg/m(2). We recorded complications and pain and function scores and computed short-term survival. Minimum followup was 0.8 months (mean, 29.2 months; range, 0.8-62.2 months).
We observed a higher rate of intraoperative complications with the standard-length stems (3.1%; three trochanteric avulsions, nine femoral fractures) compared with the shorter stems (0.4%; one femoral fracture) and managed all complications with application of one or more cerclage cables. There were no differences in implant survival, Harris hip score, and Lower Extremity Activity Scale score between groups.
Fewer intraoperative complications occurred with the short stems, attesting to the easier insertion of these devices. While longer followup is required, our early results suggest shortened stems can be used with low complication rates and do not compromise the survival and functional outcome of cementless THA.
Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
虽然短柄设计并不是新概念,但随着微创技术的应用日益增多,人们对其的兴趣也日益高涨。短柄更容易通过小切口插入。标准锥形柄已报道具有可靠的长期效果,包括功能改善、疼痛缓解和植入物存活,但短锥形柄的效果是否一样好呢?
问题/目的:我们比较了短柄、平楔形、锥形、仅扩孔股骨柄与标准长度、双锥形、扩孔和扩孔股骨柄在术中并发症、短期存活率以及疼痛和功能评分方面的情况。
我们回顾性分析了 2006 年 1 月至 2008 年 3 月间采用微创直接外侧入路进行的 658 例全髋关节置换术(THA)的 606 例患者的记录。360 例患者(389 髋)采用标准长度的柄,246 例(269 髋)采用短柄。平均年龄为 63 岁,平均体重指数为 30.7kg/m2。我们记录了并发症、疼痛和功能评分,并计算了短期存活率。最低随访时间为 0.8 个月(平均 29.2 个月;范围 0.8-62.2 个月)。
与短柄相比,标准长度柄的术中并发症发生率更高(3.1%,三例转子间骨折,九例股骨干骨折),而短柄为 0.4%(一例股骨干骨折),所有并发症均通过应用一根或多根环形扎带进行处理。两组之间在植入物存活率、Harris 髋关节评分和下肢活动量表评分方面均无差异。
短柄的术中并发症发生率较低,这证明了这些器械更容易插入。虽然需要更长的随访时间,但我们的早期结果表明,缩短柄可以以较低的并发症发生率使用,并且不会影响非骨水泥 THA 的存活和功能结果。
三级,治疗性研究。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者指南。