Suppr超能文献

仅进行髋臼翻修后未翻修骨水泥型股骨柄的转归:227例髋关节,平均随访6年。

Fate of the unrevised cemented stem following cup only revision: 227 hips at an average of 6 years follow-up.

作者信息

McGonagle L, Siney P D, Raut V V

机构信息

Wrightington Hospital, Hall Lane, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire, WN6 9EP, United Kingdom.

Wrightington Hospital, Hall Lane, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire, WN6 9EP, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Nov;101(7):781-4. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.08.005. Epub 2015 Oct 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

After primary total hip replacement, aseptic loosening of the acetabular cup is more common than loosening of the femoral stem. Removal of a well-fixed stem adds to operative time, blood loss, risk of bone loss and fracture. There is limited evidence that isolated cup revision can be a safe option in revision hip arthroplasty. We question the following regarding the unrevised cemented stem after isolated cup revision: 1) Does the unrevised stem require revision after isolated cup revision? 2) When is the stem subsequently revised? 3) Why is the stem subsequently revised? 4) Do unrevised stems exhibit radiographic loosening?

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesise that after isolated cup revision most unrevised stems do not need subsequent revision, and that most do not exhibit evidence of radiographic loosening.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent revision of the acetabular component only during revision hip arthroplasty between March 1970 and July 2013 was carried out. We assessed survival of the unrevised stem, reasons for subsequent revision, plus radiographic analysis for stem loosening.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-seven hips were included [215 patients with an average age at the time of primary surgery was 47 (13-70) years]. The Charnley stem was used in 161 cases; C-stem 65, Howse 1. Average time between primary surgery and cup revision was 15.9 (1.6-33.4) years. Average follow-up for all stems post-isolated cup revision was 6.1 (0.1-30.7) years. Twenty-eight stems (12.3%) were subsequently revised 5.1 (0.1-12.6) years after the isolated cup revision. Reasons for subsequent revision were: aseptic loosening (10); infection (8); dislocation (6); unreconstructable joint post-loose cup removal (2); fracture (2). Radiographic review was possible on 140 cases. Five femoral stems were revised and 2 others showed evidence of possible radiological loosening but were not revised.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge this is the largest series showing that isolated cup revision in the place of a well-fixed cemented stem is safe and is associated with ongoing good long-term survival of the stem.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

摘要

背景

初次全髋关节置换术后,髋臼杯无菌性松动比股骨柄松动更常见。取出固定良好的股骨柄会增加手术时间、失血量、骨质流失和骨折风险。仅有有限的证据表明,在髋关节翻修术中单纯髋臼翻修可能是一种安全的选择。我们对单纯髋臼翻修后未翻修的骨水泥型股骨柄提出以下疑问:1)单纯髋臼翻修后,未翻修的股骨柄是否需要翻修?2)股骨柄随后何时翻修?3)股骨柄随后为何翻修?4)未翻修的股骨柄是否出现影像学松动?

假设

我们假设,单纯髋臼翻修后,大多数未翻修的股骨柄不需要随后翻修,且大多数未表现出影像学松动的证据。

患者与方法

对1970年3月至2013年7月期间在髋关节翻修术中仅接受髋臼部件翻修的所有患者进行回顾性分析。我们评估了未翻修股骨柄的生存率、随后翻修的原因以及股骨柄松动的影像学分析。

结果

纳入227例髋关节[215例患者,初次手术时平均年龄为47(13 - 70)岁]。161例使用Charnley股骨柄;65例使用C型股骨柄,1例使用Howse股骨柄。初次手术与髋臼翻修之间的平均时间为15.9(1.6 - 33.4)年。单纯髋臼翻修后所有股骨柄的平均随访时间为6.1(0.1 - 30.7)年。28例股骨柄(12.3%)在单纯髋臼翻修后5.1(0.1 - 12.6)年随后进行了翻修。随后翻修的原因有:无菌性松动(10例);感染(8例);脱位(6例);松动髋臼杯取出后关节无法重建(2例);骨折(2例)。140例患者可进行影像学复查。5例股骨柄进行了翻修,另外2例显示可能存在影像学松动的证据,但未进行翻修。

结论

据我们所知,这是最大的系列研究,表明在固定良好的骨水泥型股骨柄原位进行单纯髋臼翻修是安全的,且与股骨柄良好的长期生存率相关。

证据级别

IV级,回顾性病例系列。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验