Kimitsu Central Hospital, 1010 Sakurai, 292-8535 Kisarazu city, Chiba, Japan.
Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1, Inohana Chuo-ku, 260-8677 Chiba city, Chiba, Japan.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Sep;104(5):687-694. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.03.014. Epub 2018 May 18.
Little is known about how bone cement and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification influence the cardiovascular system in elderly patients with femoral-neck fractures treated with cemented hemiarthroplasty. Therefore, we performed a case-control study to investigate these questions and compared the following:≥ASA III with≤ASA II patients who underwent cemented hemiarthroplasty; and cemented with cementless hemiarthroplasty in≥ASA III patients.
ASA classification influences the cardiovascular system during cemented hemiarthroplasty and bone cement influences intraoperative blood pressure [IBP] in patients rated≥ASA III.
This multicenter, prospective study included patients with acute displaced femoral-neck fractures. Baseline data, medical history, anesthesia, FiO, vasopressor use, femoral component, IBP, SpO, and complications were evaluated. Of 200 patients, 100 were cemented (mean age, 77±10 years), and 100 were cementless (mean age, 78±9 years). Cemented hemiarthroplasty employed a third-generation technique (plugging, irrigating, drying and filling the canal with cement under pressurization).
Systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased significantly during cementing, versus pre-rasping in≤ASA II patients (from 117.9±24.5 [range, 65-199] to 106.9±20.3 [range, 59-172]; p=0.007), in≥ASA III patients (from 129.5±21.0 [range, 90-169] to 110.4±17.9 [range, 79-157]; p=0.006), and post-stem-insertion, versus pre-rasping in≤ASA II patients (from 117.9±24.5 [range, 65-199] to 103.9±20.7 [range, 53-178]; p=0.0004), and in≥ASA III patients (from 129.5±21.0 [range, 90-169] to 111.2±24.6 [range, 70-156]; p=0.009). In≥ASA III patients, SBP decreased significantly during cementing or rasping, versus pre-rasping in cemented patients (from 129.5±21.0 [range, 90-169] to 110.4±17.9 [range, 79-157]; p=0.006), in cementless patients (from 115.0±17.7 [range, 85-150] to 100.7±15.7 [range, 75-142]; p=0.004), and post-stem-insertion, versus pre-rasping in cemented patients (from 129.5±21.0 [range, 90-169] to 111.2±SD [range]; p=0.009), and in cementless patients (from 115.0±17.7 [range, 85-150] to 89.4±17.5 [range, 58-140]; p<0.0001). There were no lethal complications.
This study indicate a similar hemodynamic change intraoperatively between≤ASA II patients and≥ASA III patients in the cemented group, and between patients with cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty in the≥ASA III patients. With modern hemiarthroplasty techniques, bone cement might be as safe as cementless techniques in elderly,≥ASA III patients.
III, multicenter case-control cohort study.
对于接受骨水泥型人工股骨头置换术治疗的股骨颈骨折老年患者,骨水泥和美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级如何影响心血管系统知之甚少。因此,我们进行了一项病例对照研究来调查这些问题,并比较了以下情况:行骨水泥型人工股骨头置换术的 ASA 分级≤Ⅱ级和 ASA 分级>Ⅱ级的患者;ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者中行骨水泥型和非骨水泥型人工股骨头置换术的患者。
ASA 分级会影响骨水泥型人工股骨头置换术中的心血管系统,骨水泥会影响 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者的术中血压[IBP]。
这是一项多中心前瞻性研究,纳入了急性移位性股骨颈骨折患者。评估了基线数据、病史、麻醉、FiO2、血管加压药的使用、股骨假体、IBP、SpO2 和并发症。200 例患者中,100 例行骨水泥固定(平均年龄 77±10 岁),100 例行非骨水泥固定(平均年龄 78±9 岁)。骨水泥型人工股骨头置换术采用第三代技术(塞子、冲洗、干燥、在加压下用水泥填充管道)。
与打磨前相比,≤ASAⅡ级患者在骨水泥填充过程中收缩压(SBP)显著下降(从 117.9±24.5[范围 65-199]降至 106.9±20.3[范围 59-172];p=0.007),在 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者中也显著下降(从 129.5±21.0[范围 90-169]降至 110.4±17.9[范围 79-157];p=0.006),且在插入股骨柄后,与打磨前相比,≤ASAⅡ级患者的收缩压也显著下降(从 117.9±24.5[范围 65-199]降至 103.9±20.7[范围 53-178];p=0.0004),在 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者中也显著下降(从 129.5±21.0[范围 90-169]降至 111.2±24.6[范围 70-156];p=0.009)。在 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者中,与打磨前相比,在骨水泥填充或打磨过程中收缩压显著下降,在骨水泥固定患者中(从 129.5±21.0[范围 90-169]降至 110.4±17.9[范围 79-157];p=0.006),在非骨水泥固定患者中(从 115.0±17.7[范围 85-150]降至 100.7±15.7[范围 75-142];p=0.004),以及在插入股骨柄后,与打磨前相比,在骨水泥固定患者中收缩压也显著下降(从 129.5±21.0[范围 90-169]降至 111.2±SD[范围];p=0.009),在非骨水泥固定患者中收缩压也显著下降(从 115.0±17.7[范围 85-150]降至 89.4±17.5[范围 58-140];p<0.0001)。无致死性并发症。
本研究表明,在骨水泥固定组中,≤ASAⅡ级患者和 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者的术中血流动力学变化相似,在 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者中,骨水泥固定和非骨水泥固定患者之间也相似。使用现代人工股骨头置换术技术,骨水泥在老年 ASA 分级>Ⅲ级患者中的安全性可能与非骨水泥技术相当。
III,多中心病例对照队列研究。