Rijnstate Hospital, Department of Orthopedics, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem.
Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Operating Rooms, Nijmegen.
Acta Orthop. 2023 Jul 31;94:399-403. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.17743.
There is no consensus on the treatment of patients with femoral neck fractures between internal fixation (IF) or directly treated with a total hip arthroplasty (fracture-THA) in particular for the age group 60-70 years. Failure of IF is not uncommon, resulting in salvage total hip arthroplasty (salvage-THA). The aim of our study was to compare revision rates of salvage-THA with fracture-THA and osteoarthritis (OA)-THA.
Revision rates and reasons for revision were compared. Data collected in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2018 was used. The study included 4,310 salvage-THAs, 12,159 fracture-THAs, and 274,147 OA-THAs. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox regression to evaluate THA survival.
No statistically significant difference in revision rates between salvage-THAs and fracture-THAs was found (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.3) whereas the revision rate was higher compared with OA-THAs (HR 1.3, CI 1.0-1.5). The 5-year revision rate was 5.0% (CI 4.4-5.8) in salvage-THAs, 4.5% (CI 4.1-5.0) in fracture-THAs, and 3.1% (CI 3.0-3.2) in OA-THAs. A higher revision rate for infection was found in salvage-THAs in comparison with fracture-THAs (HR 1.6, CI 1.0-2.3).
We found no difference in revision rates for salvage-THAs compared with fracture-THAs. The risk of revision for infection was higher for salvage-THA.
对于 60-70 岁年龄段的患者,股骨颈骨折的治疗方法在采用内固定(IF)还是直接全髋关节置换术(骨折-THA)方面尚无共识。IF 失败并不少见,导致需要进行挽救性全髋关节置换术(挽救-THA)。我们的研究目的是比较挽救-THA 与骨折-THA 和骨关节炎(OA)-THA 的翻修率。
比较了翻修率和翻修原因。使用了 2007 年至 2018 年期间荷兰关节置换登记处(LROI)收集的数据。研究包括 4310 例挽救-THA、12159 例骨折-THA 和 274147 例 OA-THA。我们进行了 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析和 Cox 回归以评估 THA 生存率。
挽救-THA 与骨折-THA 之间的翻修率无统计学显著差异(HR 1.0,95%CI 0.7-1.3),而与 OA-THA 相比,翻修率更高(HR 1.3,CI 1.0-1.5)。挽救-THA 的 5 年翻修率为 5.0%(CI 4.4-5.8),骨折-THA 为 4.5%(CI 4.1-5.0),OA-THA 为 3.1%(CI 3.0-3.2)。与骨折-THA 相比,挽救-THA 中感染的翻修率更高(HR 1.6,CI 1.0-2.3)。
我们发现挽救-THA 与骨折-THA 的翻修率没有差异。挽救-THA 感染的翻修风险更高。