Le Duff M J, Bhaurla S K, Takamura K B, Amstutz H C, Liu F-C
Acta Orthop Belg. 2016 Aug;82(3):516-521.
There is a paucity of information regarding the clinical performance of the fully cementless metal-on-metal hip resurfacing designs. We compared the biomechanical reconstruction between the two hips of a group of patients treated with a hybrid resurfacing design on one side and a new, fully cementless version of the same resurfacing design on the other side.We retrospectively identified 20 patients with a hybrid hip resurfacing on one side and a fully cementless device on the contralateral side. The cemented femoral components were implanted with a target angle stem to shaft angle of 140° while the cementless femoral components were implanted with the aim to replicate the natural neck to shaft angle.No significant differences were observed post-operatively in femoral offset or leg length despite implantation with a larger metaphyseal stem to femoral shaft angle in the hybrid group. Both hybrid and cementless designs provide similar biomechanical reconstructions.
关于全非骨水泥型金属对金属髋关节表面置换设计的临床性能,目前信息匮乏。我们比较了一组患者两侧髋关节的生物力学重建情况,一侧采用混合表面置换设计,另一侧采用相同表面置换设计的新型全非骨水泥型。我们回顾性地确定了20例患者,一侧为混合髋关节表面置换,对侧为全非骨水泥型假体。骨水泥固定的股骨组件植入时目标柄干角为140°,而非骨水泥固定的股骨组件植入时旨在复制自然颈干角。尽管混合组植入的干骺端柄与股骨干角度更大,但术后在股骨偏心距或腿长方面未观察到显著差异。混合设计和非骨水泥设计均提供相似的生物力学重建。