Department of Advanced Technology of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, Mount Sinai West Hospital, New York, NY.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1494-1500. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.008. Epub 2017 Dec 14.
This study evaluated (1) survivorship, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) complications, and (4) radiographic outcomes of dual mobility (DM) systems when compared to fixed-bearing prostheses in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).
A cohort of 85 patients who underwent revision THA using DM implants were compared to a prior matching cohort of 170 patients who received fixed-bearing implants. Mean follow-up time was 4 years in the DM cohort and 10 years in the fixed-bearing cohort. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survivorships. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Complications and radiographs were evaluated and reported at the final follow-up.
Overall aseptic and all-cause survivorships of the DM cohort were 96.5% and 95.3% compared to 94.7% and 93.5% in fixed-bearing cohort (P = .01 for aseptic and all-cause survivorships). The DM cohort had statistically significant higher survivorship when compared at equivalent follow-up interval in the fixed-bearing cohort. There were 3 aseptic (one due to dislocation) and 1 septic revision in the DM cohort compared to 9 aseptic (6 due to dislocation) and 2 septic revisions in the fixed-bearing cohort. Postoperative HHS scores were 88 and 86 points in the DM and fixed-bearing cohorts. However, the difference in mean improvement in HHS scores from preoperative to postoperative (ΔHHS) was not statistically significant (35 vs 34, P = .533). Except for the aforementioned revisions, there were no progressive radiolucencies or osteolysis on radiographic evaluation in both cohorts.
DM articulations demonstrated superior survivorship at equal follow-up intervals when compared to fixed-bearing implants and showed a trend toward lower dislocation rates.
本研究评估了(1)生存率,(2)临床结果,(3)并发症,以及(4)与固定衬垫假体相比,双动(DM)系统在翻修全髋关节置换术(THA)中的放射学结果。
比较了 85 例使用 DM 植入物行翻修 THA 的患者队列和之前接受固定衬垫植入物的 170 例匹配患者队列。DM 队列的平均随访时间为 4 年,固定衬垫队列为 10 年。采用 Kaplan-Meier 分析评估生存率。采用 Harris 髋关节评分(HHS)评估临床结果。在最后一次随访时评估并报告并发症和影像学结果。
DM 队列的总体无菌和全因生存率分别为 96.5%和 95.3%,而固定衬垫队列分别为 94.7%和 93.5%(无菌和全因生存率 P<.01)。在固定衬垫队列中,当比较等效随访间隔时,DM 队列的生存率具有统计学显著优势。DM 队列有 3 例无菌(1 例因脱位)和 1 例感染性翻修,而固定衬垫队列有 9 例无菌(6 例因脱位)和 2 例感染性翻修。DM 和固定衬垫队列的术后 HHS 评分分别为 88 分和 86 分。然而,从术前到术后 HHS 评分的平均改善(ΔHHS)差异无统计学意义(35 分比 34 分,P=.533)。除上述翻修外,在两个队列的影像学评估中均未发现进行性透亮线或骨溶解。
与固定衬垫假体相比,DM 关节在等效随访间隔内表现出更高的生存率,并显示出较低脱位率的趋势。