Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, 109 Military Hospital, 71-442 Szczecin, Poland.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Independent Public Health Care Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration, 70-382 Szczecin, Poland.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 13;19(8):4670. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084670.
(1) Background: In this study, two types of implants were compared-a conventional hip stem and a femoral neck prosthesis. (2) Methods: The femoral neck prosthesis study group included 21 patients, while the conventional hip stem control group was 40 patients. The first examination was the pre-op check, while the next ones were performed 6 weeks, 1 year, and 3 years after surgery. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), University of California at Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA), and Visual Analog Scale EQ (VAS EQ) forms were completed at each clinical study visit. (3) Results: The HHS in the femoral neck prosthesis group and the conventional hip stem group 6 weeks after surgery was 68.8 ± 16.47 and 67.6 ± 8.92, respectively, and 1 year after surgery, this was 93 ± 5.58 vs. 90.6 ± 5.17, respectively. The OHS of the femoral neck prosthesis group was 34.8 points after 6 weeks, 45.5 points after 1 year, and 43.9 points after 3 years. The respective values in the conventional hip stem group were 35.5, 41.55, and 42.13 points. The WOMAC values for the femoral neck prosthesis group were 70.6, 92.7, and 86 points, respectively, while for the conventional hip stem group, they were 74, 88.1, and 86.1 points. The UCLA scores recorded in the conventional hip stem group ranged from 3.15 to 5.05 points, but a higher mean value of 5.33 points was obtained in the femoral neck prosthesis group. VAS EQ was equal to 84 points three years after the operation. (4) Conclusions: The study showed no significant differences in the functional scores of both groups, and the new type of cervical femoral stem could be the first choice in younger patients.
（1）背景：本研究比较了两种植入物-传统髋骨柄和股骨颈假体。（2）方法：股骨颈假体研究组包括 21 例患者，而传统髋骨柄对照组为 40 例患者。第一次检查是术前检查，然后在手术后 6 周、1 年和 3 年进行后续检查。在每次临床研究访问时，都完成了 Harris Hip 评分（HHS）、安大略西部和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数（WOMAC）、牛津髋评分（OHS）、加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶活动评分（UCLA）和视觉模拟量表 EQ（VAS EQ）表。（3）结果：手术后 6 周时，股骨颈假体组和传统髋骨柄组的 HHS 分别为 68.8±16.47 和 67.6±8.92，术后 1 年分别为 93±5.58 比 90.6±5.17。股骨颈假体组术后 6 周时的 OHS 为 34.8 分，1 年后为 45.5 分，3 年后为 43.9 分。传统髋骨柄组的相应值分别为 35.5、41.55 和 42.13。股骨颈假体组的 WOMAC 值分别为 70.6、92.7 和 86，而传统髋骨柄组则为 74、88.1 和 86.1。传统髋骨柄组的 UCLA 评分范围为 3.15 至 5.05 分，但股骨颈假体组的平均值为 5.33 分更高。手术后 3 年 VAS EQ 为 84 分。（4）结论：研究表明两组的功能评分无显著差异，新型颈股骨柄可作为年轻患者的首选。
