D'Ambrosi Riccardo, Anghilieri Filippo Maria, Valli Federico, Palminteri Giovanni, Bandettini Guido, Arcuri Baldo, Mariani Ilaria, Mangiavini Laura, Ursino Nicola, Migliorini Filippo
IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Eur J Med Res. 2025 Mar 28;30(1):212. doi: 10.1186/s40001-025-02470-1.
Current evidence on the quality of sports activity in patients younger than 65 following dual mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is lacking, and whether this coupling allows better performance than single mobility (SM) still needs to be fully clarified. This clinical trial compared sport-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of the traditional SM versus DM implants in active patients younger than 65. All THAs were performed using a minimally invasive posterolateral approach, polyethylene liner and ceramic head. All implants were cementless. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scores, the High-Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS), the visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), and the Harris Hip Score (HHS) were administered to each patient. Patient assessment was conducted on admission, at 12, and at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively. A total of 403 patients were included in the study: 372 SM and 31 DM. The mean age was 56.3 ± 7.2 years. The mean length of the follow-up was 51.3 ± 21.0 months. The present clinical trial found no difference in UCLA, HHS, HAAS, and VAS. Patients returned at a similar level of sports activity in both groups.Level of evidence Level II, prospective group-controlled clinical trial.
目前缺乏关于65岁以下患者在双动(DM)全髋关节置换术(THA)后体育活动质量的证据,并且这种组合是否比单动(SM)能带来更好的表现仍有待充分阐明。这项临床试验比较了65岁以下活跃患者中传统SM植入物与DM植入物在与运动相关的患者报告结局指标(PROMs)方面的差异。所有THA均采用微创后外侧入路、聚乙烯内衬和陶瓷股骨头进行。所有植入物均为非骨水泥型。对每位患者进行加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)活动评分、高活动度关节成形术评分(HAAS)、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)和Harris髋关节评分(HHS)。在入院时、术后12个月以及至少术后24个月进行患者评估。共有403名患者纳入研究:372例SM患者和31例DM患者。平均年龄为56.3±7.2岁。平均随访时间为51.3±21.0个月。本临床试验发现UCLA、HHS、HAAS和VAS方面无差异。两组患者恢复到相似的体育活动水平。证据级别:II级,前瞻性组对照临床试验。