髋关节置换术转为全髋关节置换术:结果更接近于初次还是翻修全髋关节置换术?

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103950
Marion Mutschler, Allegra Massazza, Alexander Antoniadis, Michele Palazzuolo, Julien Wegrzyn
{"title":"髋关节置换术转为全髋关节置换术:结果更接近于初次还是翻修全髋关节置换术?","authors":"Marion Mutschler, Allegra Massazza, Alexander Antoniadis, Michele Palazzuolo, Julien Wegrzyn","doi":"10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Along with the advent of newer bearings, hip resurfacing (HR) is gaining renewed interest as a bone sparing alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients. However, the outcome of conversion of failed HR to THA (HRc) remains sparsely described. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complication rates of HRc to those of primary (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) to find out to which group HRc is most comparable.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>The study hypothesis was that the outcomes and complications rates of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than rTHA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between 2001 and 2011, a continuous series of 207 HR were prospectively included in our institutional registry and retrospectively analyzed. Out of them, 17 HR (8%) were converted to THA. Propensity scores were used to match patients in the HRc group to the pTHA and the rTHA groups using a greedy 1:3 matching procedure (51 pTHA and 51 rTHA). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, perioperative data and complications were analyzed and compared between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference between HRc and pTHA was observed in terms of clinical and functional outcomes, duration of surgery, acetabular component diameter and length of hospital stay (p = 0.13 to 0.94). Perioperative blood loss was significantly lower for pTHA than for HRc (p = 0.01). HRc demonstrated significantly higher HHS and HOOS scores than for rTHA at one year (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). Duration of surgery was significantly lower in HRc compared to rTHA (p = 0.02) while length of hospital stay was similar (p = 0.84). Complication rate was significantly higher in the rTHA group, compared to HRc and pTHA groups (37.3 vs. 29.4 vs. 11.8%, p = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that the clinical and functional outcomes of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than those of rTHA, though complication rate was higher than for pTHA.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III; Retrospective comparative study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54664,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conversion of hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty: is the outcome closer to primary or revision total hip arthroplasty?\",\"authors\":\"Marion Mutschler, Allegra Massazza, Alexander Antoniadis, Michele Palazzuolo, Julien Wegrzyn\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Along with the advent of newer bearings, hip resurfacing (HR) is gaining renewed interest as a bone sparing alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients. However, the outcome of conversion of failed HR to THA (HRc) remains sparsely described. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complication rates of HRc to those of primary (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) to find out to which group HRc is most comparable.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>The study hypothesis was that the outcomes and complications rates of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than rTHA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between 2001 and 2011, a continuous series of 207 HR were prospectively included in our institutional registry and retrospectively analyzed. Out of them, 17 HR (8%) were converted to THA. Propensity scores were used to match patients in the HRc group to the pTHA and the rTHA groups using a greedy 1:3 matching procedure (51 pTHA and 51 rTHA). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, perioperative data and complications were analyzed and compared between the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference between HRc and pTHA was observed in terms of clinical and functional outcomes, duration of surgery, acetabular component diameter and length of hospital stay (p = 0.13 to 0.94). Perioperative blood loss was significantly lower for pTHA than for HRc (p = 0.01). HRc demonstrated significantly higher HHS and HOOS scores than for rTHA at one year (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). Duration of surgery was significantly lower in HRc compared to rTHA (p = 0.02) while length of hospital stay was similar (p = 0.84). Complication rate was significantly higher in the rTHA group, compared to HRc and pTHA groups (37.3 vs. 29.4 vs. 11.8%, p = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that the clinical and functional outcomes of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than those of rTHA, though complication rate was higher than for pTHA.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III; Retrospective comparative study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103950\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103950","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着新型轴承的出现,髋关节置换术(HR)作为年轻患者传统全髋关节置换术(THA)的一种保留骨量的替代方法,再次受到人们的关注。然而,关于髋关节置换术失败后转为全髋关节置换术(HRc)的结果描述仍然很少。本研究旨在比较HRc与初治(pTHA)和翻修THA(rTHA)的疗效和并发症发生率,以找出HRc与哪一组疗效和并发症发生率最接近:研究假设:与rTHA相比,HRc的疗效和并发症发生率更接近于pTHA:2001年至2011年期间,我院登记并回顾性分析了207例连续性HR。其中,17 例 HR(8%)转为 THA。采用倾向评分法将HRc组患者与pTHA组和rTHA组患者进行匹配,匹配程序为贪婪1:3(51例pTHA和51例rTHA)。对三组患者的临床和影像学结果、围手术期数据和并发症进行了分析和比较:结果:在临床和功能预后、手术时间、髋臼组件直径和住院时间方面,HRc和pTHA无明显差异(p = 0.13至0.94)。pTHA 的围手术期失血量明显低于 HRc(p = 0.01)。一年后,HRc 的 HHS 和 HOOS 评分明显高于 rTHA(p = 0.03 和 p 结论:本研究表明,与rTHA相比,HRc的临床和功能结果更接近于pTHA,但并发症发生率高于pTHA:证据等级:III;回顾性比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Conversion of hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty: is the outcome closer to primary or revision total hip arthroplasty?

Background: Along with the advent of newer bearings, hip resurfacing (HR) is gaining renewed interest as a bone sparing alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients. However, the outcome of conversion of failed HR to THA (HRc) remains sparsely described. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complication rates of HRc to those of primary (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) to find out to which group HRc is most comparable.

Hypothesis: The study hypothesis was that the outcomes and complications rates of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than rTHA.

Materials and methods: Between 2001 and 2011, a continuous series of 207 HR were prospectively included in our institutional registry and retrospectively analyzed. Out of them, 17 HR (8%) were converted to THA. Propensity scores were used to match patients in the HRc group to the pTHA and the rTHA groups using a greedy 1:3 matching procedure (51 pTHA and 51 rTHA). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, perioperative data and complications were analyzed and compared between the three groups.

Results: No significant difference between HRc and pTHA was observed in terms of clinical and functional outcomes, duration of surgery, acetabular component diameter and length of hospital stay (p = 0.13 to 0.94). Perioperative blood loss was significantly lower for pTHA than for HRc (p = 0.01). HRc demonstrated significantly higher HHS and HOOS scores than for rTHA at one year (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). Duration of surgery was significantly lower in HRc compared to rTHA (p = 0.02) while length of hospital stay was similar (p = 0.84). Complication rate was significantly higher in the rTHA group, compared to HRc and pTHA groups (37.3 vs. 29.4 vs. 11.8%, p = 0.01).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the clinical and functional outcomes of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than those of rTHA, though complication rate was higher than for pTHA.

Level of evidence: III; Retrospective comparative study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
26.10%
发文量
329
审稿时长
12.5 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) publishes original scientific work in English related to all domains of orthopaedics. Original articles, Reviews, Technical notes and Concise follow-up of a former OTSR study are published in English in electronic form only and indexed in the main international databases.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Contents Diagnostic criteria of forearm chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a systematic review. Lag screw versus locking plate fixation for traumatic displaced medial malleolar fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. What does the SOFCOT-RENACOT 2024 hip prosthesis register tell us?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1