Maus U, Roth A, Tingart M, Rader C, Jäger M, Nöth U, Reppenhagen S, Heiss C, Beckmann J
Klinik für Orthopädie und orthopädische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Pius-Hospital, Oldenburg.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Unfallchirurgie und Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinik Leipzig AöR.
Z Orthop Unfall. 2015 Oct;153(5):498-507. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1545902. Epub 2015 Aug 5.
The present article describes the guidelines for the surgical treatment of atraumatic avascular necrosis (aFKN). These include joint preserving and joint replacement procedures. As part of the targeted literature, 43 publications were included and evaluated to assess the surgical treatment. According to the GRADE and SIGN criteria level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (EC) and expert consensus (EK) were listed for each statement and question. The analysed studies have shown that up to ARCO stage III, joint-preserving surgery can be performed. A particular joint-preserving surgery currently cannot be recommended as preferred method. The selection of the method depends on the extent of necrosis. Core decompression performed in stage ARCO I (reversible early stage) or stage ARCO II (irreversible early stage) with medial or central necrosis with an area of less than 30 % of the femoral head shows better results than conservative therapy. In ARCO stage III with infraction of the femoral head, the core decompression can be used for a short-term pain relief. For ARCO stage IIIC or stage IV core decompression should not be performed. In these cases, the indication for implantation of a total hip replacement should be checked. Additional therapeutic procedures (e.g., osteotomies) and innovative treatment options (advanced core decompression, autologous bone marrow, bone grafting, etc.) can be discussed in the individual case. In elective hip replacement complications and revision rates have been clearly declining for decades. In the case of an underlying aFKN, however, previous joint-preserving surgery (osteotomies and grafts in particular) can complicate the implantation of a THA significantly. However, the implant life seems to be dependent on the aetiology. Higher revision rates for avascular necrosis are particularly expected in sickle cell disease, Gaucher disease, or kidney transplantation patients. Furthermore, the relatively young age of the patient with avascular necrosis should be seen as the main risk factor for higher revision rate. The results after resurfacing (today with known restricted indications) and cemented as well as cementless THA in aFKN are comparable for the appropriate indication to those in coxarthrosis or other diagnoses. Regardless of the underlying disease endoprosthetic treatment in aFKN leads to good results. Both cemented and cementless fixation techniques can be recommended.
本文介绍了非创伤性缺血性坏死(aFKN)的外科治疗指南。这些指南包括保留关节和关节置换手术。作为目标文献的一部分,纳入并评估了43篇出版物以评估外科治疗。根据GRADE和SIGN标准,列出了每项陈述和问题的证据水平(LoE)、推荐等级(EC)和专家共识(EK)。分析研究表明,在ARCO III期之前,可以进行保留关节手术。目前不能推荐某种特定的保留关节手术作为首选方法。方法的选择取决于坏死的程度。在ARCO I期(可逆早期)或ARCO II期(不可逆早期),对于股骨头内侧或中央坏死面积小于30%的情况,进行髓芯减压术比保守治疗效果更好。在ARCO III期且股骨头有骨折时,髓芯减压术可用于短期缓解疼痛。对于ARCO IIIC期或IV期不应进行髓芯减压术。在这些情况下,应检查全髋关节置换植入的适应证。个别病例可讨论额外的治疗程序(如截骨术)和创新治疗选择(高级髓芯减压、自体骨髓、骨移植等)。几十年来,择期髋关节置换的并发症和翻修率明显下降。然而,在存在潜在aFKN的情况下,先前的保留关节手术(尤其是截骨术和植骨术)会显著增加全髋关节置换植入的复杂性。然而,植入物的使用寿命似乎取决于病因。在镰状细胞病、戈谢病或肾移植患者中,缺血性坏死的翻修率尤其高。此外,缺血性坏死患者相对年轻的年龄应被视为翻修率较高的主要危险因素。对于合适的适应证,aFKN患者表面置换(目前适应证有限)以及骨水泥型和非骨水泥型全髋关节置换的结果与髋关节骨关节炎或其他诊断的结果相当。无论潜在疾病如何,aFKN的人工关节置换治疗都能取得良好效果。骨水泥固定技术和非骨水泥固定技术均可推荐。