Suppr超能文献

两种不同非骨水泥髋关节柄设计在 THA 后 2 年时对 BMD 变化没有差异。

No difference for changes in BMD between two different cementless hip stem designs 2 years after THA.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery 6011, Rigshospitalet, Inge Lehmanns Vej 6, 2100, København Ø, Denmark.

Department of Hip and Knee Surgery, Herlev-Gentofte University Hospital, Gentofte Hospitalsvej 8, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 15;11(1):6057. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85424-x.

Abstract

This study evaluates how 2 different total hip arthroplasty (THA) stems compares regarding adaptive bone remodelling. The stems are both proximally porous coated, aiming for proximal fixation, but with different dispersal of the coating. They are also differently designed regarding the distal tip of the stem. We aimed to investigate if there is a difference in periprosthetic adaptive bone remodelling between two different designs. From February 2016 to September 2017, we randomised 62 patients, 1:1 (mean age = 64 years, Female/Male = 28/34), scheduled for an uncemented THA to receive either an EBM or a BM THA stem. We performed dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans within a week after surgery and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months with measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) in the 7 Gruen zones (region of interest (ROI) 1-7). Additionally, Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score were collected at 6, 12 and 24 months. We found a decrease in BMD between the postoperative and the 24-months values in all ROIs for both stems. The greatest decrease over time was seen for both groups in the ROI1 (BM = - 8.4%, p = 0.044, and EBM = - 6.5%, p = 0.001) and ROI7 (BM = - 7%, p = 0.005, and EBM = - 8.6%, p < 0.0005). We found a tendency in ROI2-4 of a higher degree of bone loss in the EBM group. However, this difference only continued beyond 6 months in ROI4 (24 months: BM = - 1.2% and EBM = - 2.8%, p = 0.001). The stems show similar adaptive bone remodelling and are clinically performing well.

摘要

本研究评估了两种不同的全髋关节置换(THA)柄在适应性骨重塑方面的差异。这些柄均为近端多孔涂层,旨在实现近端固定,但涂层的分布方式不同。此外,它们在柄的远端尖端设计上也有所不同。我们旨在研究两种不同设计之间是否存在假体周围适应性骨重塑的差异。

从 2016 年 2 月至 2017 年 9 月,我们随机将 62 名患者(平均年龄为 64 岁,女性/男性=28/34)分为两组,1:1(平均年龄=64 岁,女性/男性=28/34),计划接受非骨水泥 THA,分别接受 EBM 或 BM THA 柄。我们在手术后一周内以及术后 3、6、12 和 24 个月时进行双能 X 射线吸收法(DEXA)扫描,测量 7 个 Gruen 区(感兴趣区(ROI)1-7)的骨密度(BMD)。此外,还在术后 6、12 和 24 个月时收集了牛津髋关节评分和 Harris 髋关节评分。

我们发现两种柄的所有 ROI 的 BMD 在术后和 24 个月时均呈下降趋势。两组中 ROI1(BM=-8.4%,p=0.044,EBM=-6.5%,p=0.001)和 ROI7(BM=-7%,p=0.005,EBM=-8.6%,p<0.0005)的下降幅度最大。我们发现 EBM 组在 ROI2-4 中存在更高程度的骨丢失趋势。然而,这种差异仅在 ROI4 中持续超过 6 个月(24 个月:BM=-1.2%,EBM=-2.8%,p=0.001)。

两种柄的适应性骨重塑相似,临床效果良好。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ad96/7971014/d16719901fd9/41598_2021_85424_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验