The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen.
Acta Orthop. 2020 Feb;91(1):33-41. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1682851. Epub 2019 Oct 30.
Background and purpose - There is no consensus on best method of fixation in hip arthroplasty. We investigated different modes of fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the influence of age and sex, to assess need for a differentiated approach.Patients and methods - The study was based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in the period 2005-2017. Included were all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (uncemented stem and cemented cup), and hybrid (cemented stem and uncemented cup) THA designs that were commonly used, contemporary and well documented, using different causes of revision as endpoints.Results - From the included 66,995 primary THAs, 2,242 (3.3%) were revised. Compared with all-cemented THAs, all-uncemented had a higher risk of revision due to any cause (RR 1.4; CI 1.2-1.6), mainly due to an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture (RR 5.2; CI 3.2-8.5) and dislocation (RR 2.2; CI 1.5-3.0). Women had considerably higher risk of revision due to periprosthetic fracture after all-uncemented THA (RR 12; CI 6-25), compared with cemented. All-uncemented THAs in women of age 55-75 years (RR 1.3; CI 1.0-1.7) and over 75 years of age (RR 1.8; CI 1.2-2.7), and reverse hybrid THAs in women over the age of 75 (RR 1.5; CI 1.1-1.9) had higher risk of revision compared with cemented. Hybrid THAs (RR 1.0; CI 0.9-1.2) and reverse hybrid THAs (RR 1.0; CI 0.7-1.3) had similar risk of revision due to any cause as cemented THAs.Interpretation - Uncemented stems (all-uncemented and reverse hybrid THAs) had increased risk of revision in women over 55 years of age, mainly due to periprosthetic fracture and dislocation, and should probably not be used in THA in these patients.
髋关节置换术中固定方法尚无共识。我们研究了初次全髋关节置换术(THA)中不同固定方式以及年龄和性别的影响,以评估是否需要采用不同的方法。
本研究基于 2005 年至 2017 年挪威关节置换登记处的数据。纳入了所有使用骨水泥固定、非骨水泥固定、反式混合(非骨水泥固定的股骨柄和骨水泥固定的髋臼杯)和混合(骨水泥固定的股骨柄和非骨水泥固定的髋臼杯)的 THA 设计,这些设计均为常用的、现代的且有良好记录的方法,使用不同的翻修原因作为终点。
在纳入的 66995 例初次 THA 中,有 2242 例(3.3%)进行了翻修。与所有骨水泥固定的 THA 相比,所有非骨水泥固定的 THA 因任何原因进行翻修的风险更高(RR 1.4;95%CI 1.2-1.6),主要是由于假体周围骨折(RR 5.2;95%CI 3.2-8.5)和脱位(RR 2.2;95%CI 1.5-3.0)的风险增加。与骨水泥固定相比,女性在接受非骨水泥固定 THA 后,假体周围骨折的翻修风险显著更高(RR 12;95%CI 6-25)。55-75 岁和 75 岁以上的女性非骨水泥固定 THA(RR 1.3;95%CI 1.0-1.7)和 75 岁以上的女性反式混合 THA(RR 1.8;95%CI 1.2-2.7)的翻修风险较高,而 75 岁以上的女性混合 THA(RR 1.5;95%CI 1.1-1.9)的翻修风险也较高。与骨水泥固定相比,混合 THA(RR 1.0;95%CI 0.9-1.2)和反式混合 THA(RR 1.0;95%CI 0.7-1.3)的翻修风险相似。
对于 55 岁以上的女性,非骨水泥固定的股骨柄(非骨水泥固定和反式混合 THA)增加了翻修风险,主要是由于假体周围骨折和脱位,因此在这些患者中,不应该使用这些方法进行 THA。