AutoRSA Research Group, Orthopaedic Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Orthopaedics, Aalborg University Hospital, Farsø, Denmark.
J Orthop Res. 2022 Nov;40(11):2688-2697. doi: 10.1002/jor.25298. Epub 2022 Feb 27.
In a randomized controlled setting, medium-term implant migration and long-term clinical outcomes were compared for the Copeland and the Global C.A.P. humeral head resurfacing implants (HHRI). Thirty-two patients (mean age 63 years) were randomly allocated to a Copeland (n = 14) or Global C.A.P. (n = 18) HHRI. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometry, Constant Shoulder Score, and the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS). WOOS and revision status were also obtained cross-sectionally at a mean 10-year follow-up. At the 5-year follow-up, total translation (TT) was 0.75 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.97) for the Copeland HHRIs and 1.15 mm (95% CI: 0.85-1.46) for the Global C.A.P. HHRIs (p = 0.04), but the clinical scores were similar at all follow-ups. The cumulative risks of revision at 5 and 10 years were 29% and 43% for Copeland and 35% and 41% for Global C.A.P HHRIs (p > 0.7). No implants were loose at revision, but HHRIs that were later revised followed an early offset-increasing migration pattern with medial translation and lift-off resulting in a mean 0.53 mm (95% CI: 0.18-0.88) higher TT at the 1-year follow-up compared to non-revised HHRIs. In conclusion, the Global C.A.P. HHRI had higher TT compared with the Copeland HHRI, but clinical scores and revision rates were similar. Nonetheless, revision rates were high and challenge the use of HHRIs. Interestingly, an early radiostereometry evaluated HHRI migration pattern with increased off-set predicted later implant revision.
在一项随机对照研究中,对比了 Copeland 和 Global C.A.P. 肱骨头表面置换假体(HHRI)的中期假体迁移和长期临床结果。将 32 名患者(平均年龄 63 岁)随机分配到 Copeland(n=14)或 Global C.A.P.(n=18)HHRI 组。通过放射立体测量术、Constant 肩部评分和 Western Ontario 肩关节炎指数(WOOS)对患者进行了 5 年的随访。在平均 10 年的随访中,还进行了 WOOS 和翻修情况的横截面评估。在 5 年的随访中,Copeland HHRI 的总平移量(TT)为 0.75mm(95%置信区间:0.53-0.97),而 Global C.A.P. HHRI 的 TT 为 1.15mm(95%置信区间:0.85-1.46)(p=0.04),但所有随访时的临床评分相似。Copeland 和 Global C.A.P. HHRI 的 5 年和 10 年累积翻修风险分别为 29%和 43%,35%和 41%(p>0.7)。在翻修时,没有假体松动,但随后翻修的 HHRI 出现了早期偏移增加的迁移模式,导致内侧平移和假体脱位,与未翻修的 HHRI 相比,在 1 年随访时 TT 平均增加了 0.53mm(95%置信区间:0.18-0.88)。总之,与 Copeland HHRI 相比,Global C.A.P. HHRI 的 TT 更高,但临床评分和翻修率相似。尽管如此,翻修率仍然很高,对 HHRI 的使用提出了挑战。有趣的是,早期放射立体测量评估的 HHRI 迁移模式与增加的偏移量预测了后期假体翻修。