{"title":"小梁金属构件和增强物髋关节翻修置换术的短期疗效","authors":"L. Noconjo, M. Nortje","doi":"10.17159/2309-8309/2020/V19N3A6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Highly porous Trabecular Metal™ acetabular components are increasingly being used in revision hip arthroplasty as they facilitate ingrowth, provide a useful mechanism to deal with bone loss and may decrease the risk of infection. The purpose of this audit was to describe: 1) the total number of hip arthroplasty surgeries over five years, the ratio of revision to primary hip arthroplasty and indications for revision; 2) the short-term outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty with Trabecular Metal™ components and augments. \nMethods: A retrospective folder and radiograph review of all patients who had revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a tertiary level hospital from February 2012 to February 2017 was done. \nResults: There were 979 THAs performed over the period – 863 (87%) primary THAs, and 116 (12%) hip revision cases performed in 107 patients. Of the 116 (107 patients) hip revisions, there were seven (6%) re-revisions in five patients. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening 67 (59%), septic loosening 11 (10%), liner wear 18 (16%), periprosthetic fracture five (4%), other 15 (13%). Trabecular Metal™ was used for revision in 16 hips (14 patients), which is 14% of the total 116 revisions. There were ten females and four males with an average age of 61 years. The average duration of follow-up in this group was 18.5 months (1.5–39.2). In these 16 Trabecular Metal™ hips, there were three (19%) early failures of fixation due to technical errors. \nConclusion: In our institution, 12% of the arthroplasty is revision surgery. The indications for revision are similar to published literature. Trabecular Metal™ revisions had a 19% early failure rate due to technical error. \nLevel of evidence: Level 4","PeriodicalId":32220,"journal":{"name":"SA Orthopaedic Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"162-166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The short-term outcome of hip revision arthroplasty with Trabecular Metal™ components and augments\",\"authors\":\"L. Noconjo, M. Nortje\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/2309-8309/2020/V19N3A6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Highly porous Trabecular Metal™ acetabular components are increasingly being used in revision hip arthroplasty as they facilitate ingrowth, provide a useful mechanism to deal with bone loss and may decrease the risk of infection. The purpose of this audit was to describe: 1) the total number of hip arthroplasty surgeries over five years, the ratio of revision to primary hip arthroplasty and indications for revision; 2) the short-term outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty with Trabecular Metal™ components and augments. \\nMethods: A retrospective folder and radiograph review of all patients who had revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a tertiary level hospital from February 2012 to February 2017 was done. \\nResults: There were 979 THAs performed over the period – 863 (87%) primary THAs, and 116 (12%) hip revision cases performed in 107 patients. Of the 116 (107 patients) hip revisions, there were seven (6%) re-revisions in five patients. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening 67 (59%), septic loosening 11 (10%), liner wear 18 (16%), periprosthetic fracture five (4%), other 15 (13%). Trabecular Metal™ was used for revision in 16 hips (14 patients), which is 14% of the total 116 revisions. There were ten females and four males with an average age of 61 years. The average duration of follow-up in this group was 18.5 months (1.5–39.2). In these 16 Trabecular Metal™ hips, there were three (19%) early failures of fixation due to technical errors. \\nConclusion: In our institution, 12% of the arthroplasty is revision surgery. The indications for revision are similar to published literature. Trabecular Metal™ revisions had a 19% early failure rate due to technical error. \\nLevel of evidence: Level 4\",\"PeriodicalId\":32220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SA Orthopaedic Journal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"162-166\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SA Orthopaedic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8309/2020/V19N3A6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8309/2020/V19N3A6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
The short-term outcome of hip revision arthroplasty with Trabecular Metal™ components and augments
Background: Highly porous Trabecular Metal™ acetabular components are increasingly being used in revision hip arthroplasty as they facilitate ingrowth, provide a useful mechanism to deal with bone loss and may decrease the risk of infection. The purpose of this audit was to describe: 1) the total number of hip arthroplasty surgeries over five years, the ratio of revision to primary hip arthroplasty and indications for revision; 2) the short-term outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty with Trabecular Metal™ components and augments.
Methods: A retrospective folder and radiograph review of all patients who had revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a tertiary level hospital from February 2012 to February 2017 was done.
Results: There were 979 THAs performed over the period – 863 (87%) primary THAs, and 116 (12%) hip revision cases performed in 107 patients. Of the 116 (107 patients) hip revisions, there were seven (6%) re-revisions in five patients. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening 67 (59%), septic loosening 11 (10%), liner wear 18 (16%), periprosthetic fracture five (4%), other 15 (13%). Trabecular Metal™ was used for revision in 16 hips (14 patients), which is 14% of the total 116 revisions. There were ten females and four males with an average age of 61 years. The average duration of follow-up in this group was 18.5 months (1.5–39.2). In these 16 Trabecular Metal™ hips, there were three (19%) early failures of fixation due to technical errors.
Conclusion: In our institution, 12% of the arthroplasty is revision surgery. The indications for revision are similar to published literature. Trabecular Metal™ revisions had a 19% early failure rate due to technical error.
Level of evidence: Level 4