Kokubo Yasuo, Oki Hisashi, Sugita Daisuke, Negoro Kohei, Takeno Kenichi, Miyazaki Tsuyoshi, Nakajima Hideaki
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Matsuoka Shimoaizuki 23, Eiheiji, Fukui, 910-1193, Japan.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016 May;26(4):407-13. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1763-1. Epub 2016 Mar 24.
The aim of the present study was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes and Kaplan-Meier survivorship of patients who underwent revision surgeries of the acetabular cup that had sustained aseptic loosening. We reviewed 101 consecutive patients (120 hips; 10 men 11 hips; 91 women 109 hips; age at surgery 66 years; range 45-85) who underwent acetabular component revision surgery, at a follow-up period of 15.6 years (range 10-32). To evaluate the state of the acetabulum, acetabular bony defects were classified according to the AAOS classification based on intraoperative findings: type I (segmental deficiencies n = 24 hips), type II (cavity deficiency n = 48), type III (combined deficiency n = 46), and type IV (pelvic discontinuity n = 2). The Harris hip score improved from 42.5 ± 10.8 (mean ± SD) before surgery to 74.9 ± 14.6 points at follow-up. The survival rates of the acetabular revision surgery with cemented, cementless, and cemented cups plus reinforcement devices were 74, 66, and 82 %, respectively. The difference in the survival rate between the cemented and cementless group was marginal (p = 0.048 Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon, p = 0.061 log-rank), probably due to the early-stage failure cases in the cementless group. The cementless and reinforcement groups included nine early-stage failure cases. To prevent early-stage failure, we recommend the cementless cups for types I and II acetabular bone defects with adequate contact between host bone and acetabular component, and the cemented cup with or without reinforcement devices, together with restoration of bone stock by impaction or structured bone grafting, for cases lacking such contact.
本研究的目的是分析接受因无菌性松动而进行髋臼杯翻修手术患者的临床和影像学结果以及Kaplan-Meier生存率。我们回顾了101例连续接受髋臼组件翻修手术的患者(120髋;男性10例,11髋;女性91例,109髋;手术年龄66岁;范围45 - 85岁),随访期为15.6年(范围10 - 32年)。为评估髋臼状态,根据术中发现按照美国骨与软组织肿瘤学会(AAOS)分类对髋臼骨缺损进行分类:I型(节段性缺损,n = 24髋),II型(腔隙性缺损,n = 48),III型(复合型缺损,n = 46),IV型(骨盆连续性中断,n = 2)。Harris髋关节评分从术前的42.5±10.8(均值±标准差)提高到随访时的74.9±14.6分。使用骨水泥型、非骨水泥型以及骨水泥型髋臼杯加增强装置进行髋臼翻修手术的生存率分别为74%、66%和82%。骨水泥型和非骨水泥型组之间的生存率差异很小(Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon检验p = 0.048,对数秩检验p = 0.061),可能是由于非骨水泥型组存在早期失败病例。非骨水泥型组和增强装置组包括9例早期失败病例。为预防早期失败,对于宿主骨与髋臼组件之间有足够接触的I型和II型髋臼骨缺损,我们推荐使用非骨水泥型髋臼杯;对于缺乏这种接触的病例,推荐使用带或不带增强装置的骨水泥型髋臼杯,并通过打压植骨或结构性植骨来恢复骨量。