Suppr超能文献

股骨头缺血性坏死:钻孔精度的三维测量显示,透视引导下的核心减压与松质骨移植具有高精度且无差异。

Avascular necrosis of the femoral head: three-dimensional measurement of drilling precision reveals high accuracy and no difference between fluoroscopically controlled core decompression and cancellous bone grafting.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Hospital of Bamberg, Buger Straße 80, 96049, Bamberg, Germany.

Department of Orthopedics, University Hospital of Regensburg, Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, KaiserKarl-V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Germany.

出版信息

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Aug;143(8):4713-4719. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04753-2. Epub 2023 Jan 19.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Avascular osteonecrosis of the femoral head (AVN) is a widespread disease affecting mostly young and active people, often exacerbating in progressive stages, ending in joint replacement. The most common joint preserving operative therapy for early stages is core decompression (CD), optional with cancellous bone grafting (CBG). For success it is vital that the necrotic area is hit and the sclerotic rim is broken by drilling into the defect zone to relieve intraosseous pressure. The aim of this study was to investigate if both techniques are precise enough to hit the center of the necrosis and if there is a difference in precision between drilling with small pins (CD) and the trephine (CBG).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

10 patients underwent CD, 12 patients CBG with conventional C-arm imaging. Postoperatively 3D MRI reconstructions of the necrotic area and the drilling channels were compared. The deviation of the drilling channel from the center of the necrotic area was measured. PROMs (HHS, HOOS, EQ-5D, SF-36) were evaluated to compare the clinical success of these procedures.

RESULTS

Neither with CD nor with CBG the defect zone was missed. The drilling precision of both procedures did not differ significantly: distance to center 3.58 mm for CD (range 0.0-14.06, SD 4.2) versus 3.91 mm for CBG (range 0.0-15.27, SD 4.7). PROMs showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Concerning the most important difference between the two procedures-the surgical higher demanding technique of CBG-we suggest applying the less invasive technique of CD alone.

摘要

简介

股骨头缺血性坏死(AVN)是一种广泛影响年轻、活跃人群的疾病,通常在进展期恶化,最终需要关节置换。对于早期阶段,最常见的保留关节手术治疗方法是核心减压术(CD),可选加松质骨移植术(CBG)。为了获得成功,至关重要的是通过钻入缺损区域来减轻骨髓内压力,以击中坏死区域并打破硬化边缘。本研究旨在探讨这两种技术是否足够精确以击中坏死的中心,以及小钻头(CD)和环锯(CBG)在精确性方面是否存在差异。

患者和方法

10 例患者接受 CD 治疗,12 例患者接受常规 C 臂影像引导下的 CBG 治疗。术后对坏死区域和钻孔通道进行 3D MRI 重建,并对钻孔通道与坏死中心的偏差进行测量。采用 HHS、HOOS、EQ-5D、SF-36 等 PROMs 评估来比较这些手术的临床成功率。

结果

两种方法均未错过缺损区。两种方法的钻孔精度无显著差异:CD 的钻孔距离中心为 3.58mm(范围 0.0-14.06,SD 4.2),而 CBG 为 3.91mm(范围 0.0-15.27,SD 4.7)。PROMs 无显著差异。

结论

鉴于两种方法最重要的区别(即 CBG 手术技术要求更高),我们建议单独应用创伤更小的 CD 技术。

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