Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Paulinenhilfe, Diakonieklinikum, Stuttgart, Germany.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr;33(4):1126-1132. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.026. Epub 2017 Nov 21.
We questioned whether there was a radiographic difference in hip geometry reconstruction and implant fixation between 3 different cementless stem design concepts in patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis.
We retrospectively evaluated the preoperative and postoperative radiographs by 2 independent and blinded reviewers in a series of 264 consecutive patients who had received either a straight double-tapered stem with 3 offset options (group A), a straight double-tapered stem with 2 shape options and modular necks (group B), and a bone-preserving curved tapered stem with 4 offset options (group C). The following parameters were assessed: acetabular, femoral and hip offset (HO), center of rotation height, leg length difference (LLD), and the endosteal fit of stem in the proximal femur (canal fill index). Group comparisons were performed using a one-way analysis of variance and subsequent pairwise comparisons (t-test).
Postoperatively, HO could be equally restored with all 3 stem designs (P = .079). The postoperative LLD was smaller in group C compared to group A (0.8 mm [standard deviation, 3.2] vs 2.6 mm [standard deviation, 4.5], P = .002). Best combined reconstruction of HO and LLD could be achieved with the short curved stem by junior and senior surgeons (HO: -2.0 and -2.1 mm; LLD: 1.9 and 0.7 mm, respectively). The proximal and mid-height canal fill indexes were higher in groups B and C compared to group A, indicating a better metaphyseal and diaphyseal fit in the proximal femur (both P < .001).
All 3 cementless stem designs allowed for good hip geometry reconstruction. Multiple shape and offset options allowed for a better metaphyseal stem fit and offered minor clinical advantages for leg length reconstruction. Modular necks did not provide reconstructive advantages in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis.
我们质疑在原发性终末期髋关节骨关节炎患者中,3 种不同的非骨水泥股骨柄设计理念在髋关节几何结构重建和假体固定方面是否存在放射影像学差异。
我们对 264 例连续患者的术前和术后 X 线片进行了回顾性评估,这些患者分别接受了直型双锥形柄加 3 种偏心距选择(A 组)、直型双锥形柄加 2 种形状选择和模块化颈(B 组)以及保骨型曲锥形柄加 4 种偏心距选择(C 组)。评估了髋臼、股骨和髋关节偏心距(HO)、旋转中心高度、下肢长度差异(LLD)以及股骨近端髓内假体贴合度(管腔填充指数)。采用单因素方差分析和随后的两两比较(t 检验)进行组间比较。
术后,3 种柄设计均可使 HO 得到相同程度的恢复(P=0.079)。与 A 组相比,C 组术后 LLD 更小(0.8mm[标准差,3.2]vs 2.6mm[标准差,4.5],P=0.002)。初级和高级外科医生使用短曲柄可获得最佳的 HO 和 LLD 联合重建(HO:-2.0 和-2.1mm;LLD:1.9 和 0.7mm)。与 A 组相比,B 组和 C 组的近端和中部管腔填充指数更高,表明股骨近端的干骺端和骨干贴合更好(均 P<0.001)。
所有 3 种非骨水泥股骨柄设计均能实现良好的髋关节几何结构重建。多种形状和偏心距选择可使假体更好地贴合干骺端,并为下肢长度重建提供较小的临床优势。在原发性髋关节骨关节炎患者中,模块化颈并不能提供重建优势。