Wayne Hoskins, Sophie Corfield, Yi Peng, Stephen E Graves, Roger Bingham
{"title":"通过前路与后路全髋关节置换术进行骨水泥股骨固定的比较:对 60739 例全髋关节置换术的分析。","authors":"Wayne Hoskins, Sophie Corfield, Yi Peng, Stephen E Graves, Roger Bingham","doi":"10.1177/11207000241239914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.03), <i>p</i> = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08-8.30], <i>p</i> < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.81], <i>p</i> = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0-3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.83], <i>p</i> = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.61], <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]), <i>p</i> = 0.975).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.</p>","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":" ","pages":"442-451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11264548/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties.\",\"authors\":\"Wayne Hoskins, Sophie Corfield, Yi Peng, Stephen E Graves, Roger Bingham\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11207000241239914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.03), <i>p</i> = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08-8.30], <i>p</i> < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.81], <i>p</i> = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0-3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.83], <i>p</i> = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.61], <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]), <i>p</i> = 0.975).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HIP International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"442-451\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11264548/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HIP International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000241239914\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIP International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000241239914","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties.
Background: Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA.
Methods: Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size.
Results: The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.03), p = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08-8.30], p < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.81], p = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0-3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.83], p = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.61], p < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]), p = 0.975).
Conclusions: There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.
期刊介绍:
HIP International is the official journal of the European Hip Society. It is the only international, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal dedicated to diseases of the hip. HIP International considers contributions relating to hip surgery, traumatology of the hip, prosthetic surgery, biomechanics, and basic sciences relating to the hip. HIP International invites reviews from leading specialists with the aim of informing its readers of current evidence-based best practice.
The journal also publishes supplements containing proceedings of symposia, special meetings or articles of special educational merit.
HIP International is divided into six independent sections led by editors of the highest scientific merit. These sections are:
• Biomaterials
• Biomechanics
• Conservative Hip Surgery
• Paediatrics
• Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty
• Traumatology