Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Department of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Jun 17;15(1):225. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01736-0.
Inferior placement of a femoral stem is predictive for early loosening and failure, but does restoration of the original hip anatomy benefit the function and survival of a total hip replacement?
Seventy-five patients with primary unilateral hip osteoarthritis operated with an uncemented anatomical stem were randomized for either standard or modular stems. We used 50 ABG II stems with modular necks and 25 standard stems (control group). We measured the symmetry in hip anatomy between healthy and operated side. The anatomical restoration variables were anteversion, global offset, and femoral offset/acetabular offset (FO/AO) quota. We performed measurements using a CT-based 3D templating and measuring software. Migratory behavior of the stems was then measured postoperatively with repeated radiostereometry (RSA) examinations over 5 years.
Both stem types showed an early (within 3 months) good stabilization after an initial slight rotation into retroversion and subsidence. There were no significant differences in RSA migration between modular and standard stems. Postoperative anteversion and FO/AO quota had no impact on stem migration. The standard stem tended to result in insufficient global offset (GO), whereas the modular stem did not.
The modular stem gave good symmetrical anatomical restoration and, like the standard version, a benign migratory behavior. Anteversion, GO, and FO/AO quota had no significant impact on stem migration. It therefore seems to be of no importance whether we choose a modular or a standard stem with regard to postoperative stem migration for this stem type. We overestimated the effect anatomical parameters have on stem movement; hence, we believe the study to be underpowered.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01512550. Registered 19 January 2012-retrospectively registered.
股骨柄的位置不佳可预测早期松动和失败,但恢复原始髋关节解剖结构是否有益于全髋关节置换的功能和存活率?
75 例原发性单侧髋关节骨关节炎患者接受非骨水泥解剖型柄固定治疗,随机分为标准组或模块组。我们使用了 50 个 ABG II 带模块颈的和 25 个标准柄(对照组)。我们测量了健康侧和患侧髋关节解剖结构的对称性。解剖学恢复变量包括前倾角、整体偏移和股骨偏移/髋臼偏移(FO/ AO)比值。我们使用基于 CT 的三维模板和测量软件进行测量。术后使用重复放射性立体摄影术(RSA)检查 5 年,测量了柄的迁移行为。
两种类型的柄在初始轻微旋后和下沉后均在 3 个月内早期(早期)稳定。模块柄和标准柄在 RSA 迁移方面无显著差异。术后前倾角和 FO/AO 比值对柄迁移无影响。标准柄倾向于导致整体偏移(GO)不足,而模块柄则不会。
模块柄提供了良好的对称解剖学恢复,与标准版本一样,具有良性的迁移行为。前倾角、GO 和 FO/AO 比值对柄迁移无显著影响。因此,对于这种类型的柄,选择模块柄还是标准柄似乎并不重要。我们高估了解剖参数对柄运动的影响;因此,我们认为该研究的效力不足。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01512550。2012 年 1 月 19 日注册-回顾性注册。