The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Int Orthop. 2012 Dec;36(12):2399-410. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1686-3. Epub 2012 Oct 26.
We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).
A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria.
Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes.
On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.
我们进行了系统的文献回顾,以便根据“循证医学”原则评估髋关节表面置换术。我们的主要目的是比较表面置换植入物的翻修率与国家临床卓越研究所(NICE)设定的生存极限。
按照 PRISMA 声明的建议,对截至 2012 年 7 月的所有已发表(Medline、Cochrane、EMBASE)文献研究数据库进行了系统回顾。数据提取主要集中在功能结果、并发症和生存率上。根据系列平均值对植入物的生存率进行分析,并与 NICE 标准进行比较。
确定了 53 项研究,并纳入了 26456 例,平均每个研究有 499.17 ± 856.7(范围,38-5000)例。中位生存率为 95.57±3.7%(范围,84-100)。满足 NICE 设定标准的研究比例为 69.8%。就按植入物数量计算的累积翻修率而言,BHR®、Conserve Plus®和 Cormet®的结果最佳。术后平均评分 91.2 ± 7.72(范围,68.3-98.6)。在功能结果方面,植入物之间没有统计学上的显著差异。
基于目前的证据基础,本次文献回顾强调了某些参数的重要性,这些参数可以改善表面置换的结果。植入物的类型似乎起着重要作用,患者选择也是如此。