• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

股骨头大小对全髋关节置换术后腹股沟疼痛的影响。

The Effect of Femoral Head Size on Groin Pain in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

机构信息

NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Huntington Hospital, Huntington, NY.

出版信息

J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jul;37(7S):S577-S581. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.020. Epub 2022 Mar 11.

DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.020
PMID:35283236
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although increased femoral head size reduces the risk of instability in total hip arthroplasty (THA), it may lead to iliopsoas irritation and increased anterior groin pain. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes between non-modular dual-mobility (NDM) implants and small (≤32 mm) and large (≥36 mm) fixed-bearing (FB) constructs.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all primary total hip arthroplasties from 2011 to 2021 was conducted at a single, urban academic institution. Patients were separated into 3 cohorts: NDM implant ≤32 mm and FB implant ≥36 mm. Demographics and outcomes such as length of stay, dislocation, and anterior groin pain were assessed. Patients were deemed as having groin pain if they received an iliopsoas injection or had extended physical therapy ordered beyond 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were 178 NDM implants, 936 ≤32-mm FB, and 2,454 ≥36-mm FB implants included. Length of stay significantly differed between the groups (48.4 ± 43.3 vs 63.2 ± 40.6 vs 57.2 ± 38.1 hours; P = .001). Although not statistically significant, the ≥36-mm FB cohort had the highest rate of dislocations (0.6% vs 0.7% vs 0.9%; P = .84). Although no patients with an NDM implant received an iliopsoas injection, 9 patients (0.9%) with a ≤32-mm FB implant and 9 patients (0.4%) with a ≥36-mm implant received an injection (P = .06). However, 18 (10.1%) patients with an NDM implant, 304 (32.5%) patients with a ≤32-mm FB implant, and 355 (14.5%) patients with a ≥36-mm FB implant received extended physical therapy 3 months after surgery (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

NDM implants, as well as FB implants with both small and large head sizes are effective at preventing dislocation. NDM implants did not result in an increase in anterior groin pain compared to ≤32-mm and ≥36-mm FB constructs.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study.

摘要

背景

虽然增大股骨头尺寸可降低全髋关节置换术(THA)中不稳定的风险,但可能导致髂腰肌激惹和增加前腹股沟疼痛。本研究的目的是比较非模块式双动(NDM)植入物与小(≤32mm)和大(≥36mm)固定轴承(FB)结构的结果。

方法

对单所城市学术机构 2011 年至 2021 年所有初次全髋关节置换术进行回顾性分析。患者分为 3 组:NDM 植入物≤32mm 和 FB 植入物≥36mm。评估了患者的人口统计学和结果,如住院时间、脱位和前腹股沟疼痛。如果患者接受了髂腰肌注射或术后 3 个月以上接受了延长物理治疗,则认为他们有腹股沟疼痛。

结果

共纳入 178 例 NDM 植入物、936 例≤32mm FB 植入物和 2454 例≥36mm FB 植入物。各组的住院时间差异有统计学意义(48.4±43.3、63.2±40.6、57.2±38.1 小时;P=0.001)。尽管无统计学意义,但≥36mm FB 组的脱位率最高(0.6%、0.7%、0.9%;P=0.84)。虽然没有接受 NDM 植入物的患者接受了髂腰肌注射,但有 9 例(0.9%)接受≤32mm FB 植入物的患者和 9 例(0.4%)接受≥36mm 植入物的患者接受了注射(P=0.06)。然而,有 18 例(10.1%)接受 NDM 植入物的患者、304 例(32.5%)接受≤32mm FB 植入物的患者和 355 例(14.5%)接受≥36mm FB 植入物的患者在术后 3 个月接受了延长物理治疗(P<0.001)。

结论

NDM 植入物以及小、大头尺寸的 FB 植入物均能有效预防脱位。与≤32mm 和≥36mm FB 结构相比,NDM 植入物不会增加前腹股沟疼痛。

证据等级 III:回顾性队列研究。

相似文献

1
The Effect of Femoral Head Size on Groin Pain in Total Hip Arthroplasty.股骨头大小对全髋关节置换术后腹股沟疼痛的影响。
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jul;37(7S):S577-S581. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.020. Epub 2022 Mar 11.
2
Less groin pain with dual-mobility bearings versus fixed bearings in total hip arthroplasty.全髋关节置换术中使用双动轴承比固定轴承可减少腹股沟疼痛。
Hip Int. 2024 Jan;34(1):15-20. doi: 10.1177/11207000231158722. Epub 2023 Mar 8.
3
Hip arthroplasty dislocation risk calculator: evaluation of one million primary implants and twenty-five thousand dislocations with deep learning artificial intelligence in a systematic review of reviews.髋关节置换脱位风险计算器:在一项系统综述中,利用深度学习人工智能对100万个初次植入物和2.5万例脱位进行评估
Int Orthop. 2023 Feb;47(2):557-571. doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05644-2. Epub 2022 Nov 29.
4
Selective Use of Dual-Mobility Did Not Significantly Reduce 90-Day Readmissions or Reoperations After Total Hip Arthroplasty.选择性使用双动式髋关节假体并未显著降低全髋关节置换术后 90 天内的再入院率或再手术率。
J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jul;38(7S):S136-S141. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.04.008. Epub 2023 Apr 15.
5
Otto Aufranc Award: Dual-mobility Constructs in Revision THA Reduced Dislocation, Rerevision, and Reoperation Compared With Large Femoral Heads.奥托·奥夫兰克奖:与大股骨头相比,翻修全髋关节置换术中双动结构减少了脱位、再次翻修和再次手术的发生率。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Feb;476(2):293-301. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000035.
6
Prevalence of groin pain after primary dual-mobility total hip arthroplasty.初次双动全髋关节置换术后腹股沟疼痛的患病率。
Hip Int. 2023 Mar;33(2):214-220. doi: 10.1177/11207000211039168. Epub 2021 Sep 19.
7
Risk of revision and dislocation in single, dual mobility and large femoral head total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and network meta-analysis.单动、双动及大股骨头全髋关节置换术的翻修及脱位风险:系统评价与网状Meta分析
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018 Apr;28(3):445-455. doi: 10.1007/s00590-017-2073-y. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
8
Instability After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Dual Mobility Versus Jumbo Femoral Heads.初次全髋关节置换术后不稳定:双动头与超大号股骨头。
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jul;37(7S):S571-S576. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.113. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
9
Dual-Mobility vs Fixed-Bearing Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Under 55 Years of Age: A Single-Institution, Matched-Cohort Analysis.55 岁以下患者中双动与固定衬垫全髋关节置换术的比较:单中心、配对队列分析。
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Oct;32(10):3076-3081. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.004. Epub 2017 May 11.
10
Cadaver-Specific Models for Finite-Element Analysis of Iliopsoas Impingement in Dual-Mobility Hip Implants.尸体特异性模型在双动髋关节假体中髂腰肌撞击的有限元分析中的应用。
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Nov;33(11):3574-3580. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.029. Epub 2018 Jun 30.

引用本文的文献

1
[Study on assessment methods for acetabular cup size in total hip arthroplasty].[全髋关节置换术中髋臼杯尺寸评估方法的研究]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2025 Feb 15;39(2):163-167. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202411005.
2
Comparing Stability, Gait, and Functional Score after 40-mm Dual-Mobility Hip Arthroplasty to 36-mm Head Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients.比较老年髋部骨折患者行40毫米双动全髋关节置换术与36毫米股骨头全髋关节置换术后的稳定性、步态及功能评分。
Clin Orthop Surg. 2025 Feb;17(1):62-70. doi: 10.4055/cios24148. Epub 2024 Dec 9.
3
Modular versus monobloc dual mobility components for primary cementless total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implants' survival, complication rates, clinical and radiographic outcomes.
模块化与整体式双动组件在初次非骨水泥全髋关节置换术中的应用:假体存活率、并发症发生率、临床和影像学结果的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Nov 16;35(1):7. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-04136-w.
4
The role of femoral head size in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: analysis of a cohort of 3813 patients with long term follow-up.股骨头大小在金属对金属髋关节置换术中的作用:对一组 3813 例长期随访患者的分析。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Nov;144(11):4809-4818. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05567-0. Epub 2024 Nov 5.
5
Comparison of Outcomes in Dual-Mobility Versus Fixed-Bearing Implants in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.初次全髋关节置换术中双动型与固定承重型植入物的疗效比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Cureus. 2024 Jun 5;16(6):e61715. doi: 10.7759/cureus.61715. eCollection 2024 Jun.
6
Groin pain aggravated in short term contracted by COVID-19 in THA patients: a case-crossover study.THA 患者新冠感染后短期内腹股沟疼痛加重:病例交叉研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jun 24;19(1):374. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04862-1.
7
Dual-Mobility Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Do Not Increase the Risk of Complication Compared to Conventional Articulations: A Matched Cohort Comparative Analysis.与传统关节置换相比,初次全髋关节置换术中双动髋臼组件不会增加并发症风险:一项匹配队列对比分析。
Arthroplast Today. 2024 Feb 26;26:101332. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101332. eCollection 2024 Apr.
8
The Performance of Primary Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged 55 Years and Younger: A Systematic Review.55岁及以下患者初次双动全髋关节置换术的疗效:一项系统评价
Arthroplast Today. 2023 Nov 8;24:101241. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101241. eCollection 2023 Dec.