右手外科医生通过直接外侧入路手术时,左右两侧髋臼杯的放置位置是否不同?一项比较研究。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1186/s42836-024-00278-8
Ahmed A Khalifa, Ahmed M Abdelaal
{"title":"右手外科医生通过直接外侧入路手术时,左右两侧髋臼杯的放置位置是否不同?一项比较研究。","authors":"Ahmed A Khalifa, Ahmed M Abdelaal","doi":"10.1186/s42836-024-00278-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although many factors were suggested to affect acetabular cup positioning during primary total hip arthroplasty, the effect of surgeon handedness was rarely evaluated. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in cup positioning (inclination and anteversion) between the right and left sides during primary THA. Secondly, to check the difference in the percentages of cups positioned in the safe zone for inclination and anteversion and if there will be a difference in cup positioning according to the type of cup fixation (cemented vs. cementless).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cup inclination and anteversion of 420 THAs were radiographically evaluated retrospectively. THAs were performed by a senior right-handed surgeon, who operated through a direct lateral approach in a lateral decubitus position using manual instruments and freehand technique for cup placement. Patients were assigned to two groups: Group A (right, or dominant side), and Group B (left, or non-dominant side), with equal cases of THAs (n = 210) in each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No difference was found in patients' basic characteristics, preoperative diagnosis, and cup fixation (54.3% cemented and 45.7% cementless) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in cup inclination between Groups A and Group B (40.1° ± 6.3° vs. 38.2° ± 6.1°) (P = 0.002). No significant difference was revealed in anteversion between the two groups (11.7° ± 4.4° vs. 11.8° ± 4.7°) (P = 0.95). The percentage of cups located within the safe zone in terms of both inclination and anteversion was 85.2% vs. 83.8% and 69% vs. 73.3% for Group A and Group B, according to Lewinnek and Callahan's safe zones, respectively. There existed a significant difference in the cemented cup inclination between Group A and Group B (40.8° ± 6.4° vs. 38.3° ± 6.3°) (P = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cup inclination is affected by the surgeon's handedness when operating through a direct lateral approach and using a freehand technique, while anteversion is less affected. Furthermore, the difference is greater with cemented cups.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536924/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the placement of acetabular cups differ between right and left sides for a right-handed surgeon operating through a direct lateral approach? A comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed A Khalifa, Ahmed M Abdelaal\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42836-024-00278-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although many factors were suggested to affect acetabular cup positioning during primary total hip arthroplasty, the effect of surgeon handedness was rarely evaluated. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in cup positioning (inclination and anteversion) between the right and left sides during primary THA. Secondly, to check the difference in the percentages of cups positioned in the safe zone for inclination and anteversion and if there will be a difference in cup positioning according to the type of cup fixation (cemented vs. cementless).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cup inclination and anteversion of 420 THAs were radiographically evaluated retrospectively. THAs were performed by a senior right-handed surgeon, who operated through a direct lateral approach in a lateral decubitus position using manual instruments and freehand technique for cup placement. Patients were assigned to two groups: Group A (right, or dominant side), and Group B (left, or non-dominant side), with equal cases of THAs (n = 210) in each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No difference was found in patients' basic characteristics, preoperative diagnosis, and cup fixation (54.3% cemented and 45.7% cementless) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in cup inclination between Groups A and Group B (40.1° ± 6.3° vs. 38.2° ± 6.1°) (P = 0.002). No significant difference was revealed in anteversion between the two groups (11.7° ± 4.4° vs. 11.8° ± 4.7°) (P = 0.95). The percentage of cups located within the safe zone in terms of both inclination and anteversion was 85.2% vs. 83.8% and 69% vs. 73.3% for Group A and Group B, according to Lewinnek and Callahan's safe zones, respectively. There existed a significant difference in the cemented cup inclination between Group A and Group B (40.8° ± 6.4° vs. 38.3° ± 6.3°) (P = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cup inclination is affected by the surgeon's handedness when operating through a direct lateral approach and using a freehand technique, while anteversion is less affected. Furthermore, the difference is greater with cemented cups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536924/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00278-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00278-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:尽管有很多因素被认为会影响初级全髋关节置换术中的髋臼杯定位,但很少有人评估外科医生手型的影响。我们的主要目的是评估初级全髋关节置换术中左右两侧髋臼杯定位(倾斜和前倾)的差异。其次,检查定位在倾斜和内翻安全区的髋臼杯百分比的差异,以及根据髋臼杯固定类型(有骨水泥与无骨水泥),髋臼杯定位是否存在差异:方法:对 420 例 THAs 的髋臼杯倾斜和内翻情况进行回顾性影像学评估。THAs 由一名资深的右撇子外科医生实施,他采用直接侧位入路,侧卧位,使用手动器械和徒手技术放置髋臼杯。患者被分为两组:A 组(右侧或优势侧)和 B 组(左侧或非优势侧),每组的 THAs 例数相同(n = 210):两组患者的基本特征、术前诊断和髋臼杯固定方式(54.3%为骨水泥固定,45.7%为无骨水泥固定)均无差异。A 组和 B 组的髋臼杯倾斜度有明显差异(40.1° ± 6.3° vs. 38.2° ± 6.1°)(P = 0.002)。两组的前倾角无明显差异(11.7° ± 4.4° vs. 11.8° ± 4.7°)(P = 0.95)。根据 Lewinnek 和 Callahan 的安全区,A 组和 B 组在倾斜度和前倾角方面位于安全区的牙杯比例分别为 85.2% 对 83.8%,69% 对 73.3%。A组和B组的骨水泥杯倾斜度存在明显差异(40.8° ± 6.4° vs. 38.3° ± 6.3°)(P = 0.004):结论:通过直接侧方入路和使用徒手技术进行手术时,髋臼杯倾斜度受外科医生手型的影响较大,而内翻的影响较小。此外,骨水泥杯的差异更大。
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
Does the placement of acetabular cups differ between right and left sides for a right-handed surgeon operating through a direct lateral approach? A comparative study.

Purpose: Although many factors were suggested to affect acetabular cup positioning during primary total hip arthroplasty, the effect of surgeon handedness was rarely evaluated. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in cup positioning (inclination and anteversion) between the right and left sides during primary THA. Secondly, to check the difference in the percentages of cups positioned in the safe zone for inclination and anteversion and if there will be a difference in cup positioning according to the type of cup fixation (cemented vs. cementless).

Methods: Cup inclination and anteversion of 420 THAs were radiographically evaluated retrospectively. THAs were performed by a senior right-handed surgeon, who operated through a direct lateral approach in a lateral decubitus position using manual instruments and freehand technique for cup placement. Patients were assigned to two groups: Group A (right, or dominant side), and Group B (left, or non-dominant side), with equal cases of THAs (n = 210) in each group.

Results: No difference was found in patients' basic characteristics, preoperative diagnosis, and cup fixation (54.3% cemented and 45.7% cementless) between the two groups. There was a significant difference in cup inclination between Groups A and Group B (40.1° ± 6.3° vs. 38.2° ± 6.1°) (P = 0.002). No significant difference was revealed in anteversion between the two groups (11.7° ± 4.4° vs. 11.8° ± 4.7°) (P = 0.95). The percentage of cups located within the safe zone in terms of both inclination and anteversion was 85.2% vs. 83.8% and 69% vs. 73.3% for Group A and Group B, according to Lewinnek and Callahan's safe zones, respectively. There existed a significant difference in the cemented cup inclination between Group A and Group B (40.8° ± 6.4° vs. 38.3° ± 6.3°) (P = 0.004).

Conclusion: Cup inclination is affected by the surgeon's handedness when operating through a direct lateral approach and using a freehand technique, while anteversion is less affected. Furthermore, the difference is greater with cemented cups.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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