Suppr超能文献

初次全髋关节翻修中使用非骨水泥或骨水泥固定的假体?一项 867 例患者的观察性研究,包括股骨骨缺损大小的评估。

Uncemented or cemented stems in first-time revision total hip replacement? An observational study of 867 patients including assessment of femoral bone defect size.

机构信息

Section of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.

The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden.

出版信息

Acta Orthop. 2021 Apr;92(2):143-150. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1846956. Epub 2020 Nov 12.

Abstract

Background and purpose - Uncemented stems are gradually replacing cemented stems in hip revision surgery. We compared the risk of re-revision between uncemented and cemented revision stems and assessed whether the different fixation methods are used in similar femoral bone defects.Patients and methods - 867 patients operated on with uncemented or cemented stems in first-time hip revision surgery due to aseptic loosening performed 2006-2016 were identified in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Preoperative femoral bone defect size was assessed on radiographs of all patients. Cox regression models were fitted to estimate the adjusted risk of re-revision during different postoperative time periods. Re-revision of any component for any reason, and stem re-revision, as well as risk of cause-specific re-revision was estimated.Results - Most patients in both fixation groups had Paprosky class IIIA femoral bone defects prior to surgery, but there were more severe bone defects in the cemented group. The adjusted risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was higher in patients with uncemented compared with those with cemented revision stems during the first 3 years after index surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-9). From the 4th year onward, the risk of re-revision of any component for any reason was similar (HR 0.5, CI 0.2-1.4). Uncemented revision stems conferred a higher risk of dislocation compared with cemented stems (HR 5, CI 1.2-23) during the first 3 years.Interpretation - Although not predominantly used in more complex femoral defects, uncemented revision stem fixation confers a slightly higher risk of re-revision during the first years, but this risk is attenuated after longer follow-up.

摘要

背景与目的-非骨水泥固定假体在髋关节翻修术中逐渐取代骨水泥固定假体。我们比较了非骨水泥固定和骨水泥固定翻修假体之间的再次翻修风险,并评估了不同固定方法是否应用于相似的股骨骨缺损。

患者和方法-2006 年至 2016 年,在瑞典髋关节翻修登记处确定了 867 例因无菌性松动而首次行髋关节翻修术的患者,分别采用非骨水泥或骨水泥固定假体。对所有患者的术前股骨骨缺损大小进行 X 线评估。使用 Cox 回归模型来估计不同术后时间段再次翻修的调整风险。评估任何原因的任何组件的再次翻修、假体再次翻修以及特定原因的再次翻修风险。

结果-两组固定患者中,大多数患者在手术前均存在 Paprosky Ⅲ A 型股骨骨缺损,但骨水泥固定组的骨缺损更严重。与骨水泥固定翻修假体患者相比,非骨水泥固定翻修假体患者在指数手术后 3 年内任何原因的任何组件再次翻修的调整风险更高(危险比[HR]4,95%置信区间[CI]2-9)。从第 4 年开始,任何原因的任何组件再次翻修的风险相似(HR 0.5,CI 0.2-1.4)。非骨水泥固定翻修假体在第 1 至 3 年期间与骨水泥固定假体相比,脱位的风险更高(HR 5,CI 1.2-23)。

结论-尽管在更复杂的股骨缺损中未主要使用,但非骨水泥固定翻修假体在最初几年再次翻修的风险略高,但在更长的随访后这种风险会减弱。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e654/8159203/788371e84406/IORT_A_1846956_F0002_C.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验