Jacobsson S A, Djerf K, Gillquist J, Hammerby S, Ivarsson I
University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Jul;75(4):624-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.75B4.8331120.
We compared two cementless femoral components, the 'isoelastic' Butel stem and the more rigid PCA design, in a randomised, prospective study of 56 patients with a mean follow-up of 4 years (2 to 5). Patients were matched in 28 pairs, and one of each pair was treated with each femoral component. The isoelastic stem gave fewer signs of stress shielding radiologically, but both the Harris hip score and the visual analogue pain scale showed significantly inferior results at the two-year and three-year follow-up. The overall failure rates for the femoral components were 43% for the Butel and 11% for the PCA. These results contrast with those of earlier experimental and clinical studies, in which isoelastic properties appeared to be advantageous. This review emphasises the importance of controlled studies before an altered or new design of prosthesis is released on to the market for general use.
在一项针对56例患者的随机前瞻性研究中,我们比较了两种非骨水泥型股骨假体,即“等弹性”Butel柄和刚性更强的PCA设计,平均随访4年(2至5年)。患者被配对成28对,每对中的一人接受每种股骨假体治疗。等弹性柄在放射学上显示出较少的应力遮挡迹象,但在两年和三年随访时,Harris髋关节评分和视觉模拟疼痛量表的结果均明显较差。Butel股骨假体的总体失败率为43%,PCA为11%。这些结果与早期的实验和临床研究结果形成对比,在早期研究中,等弹性特性似乎具有优势。这篇综述强调了在改变或新型假体设计投放市场供普遍使用之前进行对照研究的重要性。