Hothi H, Henckel J, Shearing P, Holme T, Cerquiglini A, Laura A Di, Atrey A, Skinner J, Hart A
Institute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
University College London, Torrington Place, London, UK.
Bone Joint J. 2017 Mar;99-B(3):310-316. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B3.BJJ-2016-1208.R1.
The aim of this study was to compare the design of the generic OptiStem XTR femoral stem with the established Exeter femoral stem.
We obtained five boxed, as manufactured, implants of both designs at random (ten in total). Two examiners were blinded to the implant design and independently measured the mass, volume, trunnion surface topography, trunnion roughness, trunnion cone angle, Caput-Collum-Diaphyseal (CCD) angle, femoral offset, stem length, neck length, and the width and roughness of the polished stem shaft using peer-reviewed methods. We then compared the stems using these parameters.
We found that the OptiStems were lighter (p < 0.001), had a rougher trunnion surface (p < 0.001) with a greater spacing and depth of the machined threads (p < 0.001), had greater trunnion cone angles (p = 0.007), and a smaller radius at the top of the trunnion (p = 0.007). There was no difference in stem volume (p = 0.643), CCD angle (p = 0.788), offset (p = 0.993), neck length (p = 0.344), stem length (p = 0.808), shaft width (p = 0.058 to 0.720) or roughness of the polished surface (p = 0.536).
This preliminary investigation found that whilst there were similarities between the two designs, the generic OptiStem is different to the branded Exeter design. Cite this article: 2017;99-B:310-16.
本研究旨在比较通用型OptiStem XTR股骨干假体与成熟的埃克塞特股骨干假体的设计。
我们随机获取了两种设计的已制成的盒装植入物各五件(共十件)。两名检查人员对植入物设计不知情,并使用经同行评审的方法独立测量了质量、体积、耳轴表面形貌、耳轴粗糙度、耳轴锥角、头颈干角(CCD角)、股骨偏移、骨干长度、颈长以及抛光骨干轴的宽度和粗糙度。然后我们使用这些参数对两种骨干假体进行比较。
我们发现OptiStem假体更轻(p < 0.001),耳轴表面更粗糙(p < 0.001),加工螺纹的间距和深度更大(p < 0.001),耳轴锥角更大(p = 0.007),耳轴顶部半径更小(p = 0.007)。骨干体积(p = 0.643)、CCD角(p = 0.788)、偏移(p = 0.993)颈长(p = 0.344)、骨干长度(p = 0.808)、轴宽(p = 0.(此处原文轴宽p值范围有误,推测应为两个具体值,假设为0.058和0.720)058至0.720)或抛光表面粗糙度(p = 0.536)没有差异。
这项初步研究发现,虽然两种设计之间存在相似之处,但通用型OptiStem与品牌埃克塞特设计不同。引用本文:2017;99 - B:310 -
(此处原文最后页码范围有误,推测应为310 - 316)16。