全髋关节置换术后脱位:危险因素及治疗方案分析

G. Alberton, W. High, B. Morrey
{"title":"全髋关节置换术后脱位:危险因素及治疗方案分析","authors":"G. Alberton, W. High, B. Morrey","doi":"10.2106/00004623-200210000-00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Dislocation is a leading and underemphasized cause of failure in revision total hip arthroplasty. Although this fact is generally well recognized, we are aware of no detailed assessments of this problem to date. Our purpose therefore was to evaluate the risk factors leading to instability after revision as well as the expected outcome of various treatment strategies. Methods: Data were obtained from 1548 revision arthroplasties in 1405 patients who were followed for a minimum of two years (range, 2.0 to 16.4 years; mean, 8.1 years) or until dislocation occurred. Revisions specifically performed because of instability were excluded from the analysis. Risk factors were recorded along with treatment strategies and their success. The statistical relevance of both sets of variables was calculated. Results: A dislocation occurred after 115 (7.4%) of 1548 revision hip arthroplasties. The use of an elevated rim liner was associated with significant decreases (p < 0.05) in dislocation following revision of femoral and acetabular components. The presence of trochanteric nonunion was a significant risk factor for subsequent dislocation (p < 0.001). Revisions with 32-mm and 28-mm-diameter femoral heads were both more stable than was revision with a 22-mm-diameter head (p < 0.05 for each). Surgery was the initial treatment for twelve of the 115 dislocations. Six of the twelve hips had no further instability. Of the 103 postoperative dislocations initially managed nonoperatively, only thirty-six did not redislocate. Thirty-eight of the sixty-seven hips that had an additional dislocation after closed treatment had repeat surgery for treatment of the instability. Only eleven of the thirty-eight hips were stable at one year after surgery. Overall, at the time of the final assessment, sixty-five (57%) of the 115 hips were stable, forty-one (36%) remained unstable, and the status of nine (8%) was unknown. Conclusions: The risk factors for instability after a total hip revision are not the same as those after a primary procedure. The extent of the soft-tissue dissection is probably the most important variable since head size and trochanteric nonunion are related to \"soft-tissue tension.\" Modular acetabular components with an elevated rim help to stabilize a hip undergoing a revision procedure.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"397","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Risk Factors and Treatment Options\",\"authors\":\"G. Alberton, W. High, B. Morrey\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/00004623-200210000-00008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Dislocation is a leading and underemphasized cause of failure in revision total hip arthroplasty. Although this fact is generally well recognized, we are aware of no detailed assessments of this problem to date. Our purpose therefore was to evaluate the risk factors leading to instability after revision as well as the expected outcome of various treatment strategies. Methods: Data were obtained from 1548 revision arthroplasties in 1405 patients who were followed for a minimum of two years (range, 2.0 to 16.4 years; mean, 8.1 years) or until dislocation occurred. Revisions specifically performed because of instability were excluded from the analysis. Risk factors were recorded along with treatment strategies and their success. The statistical relevance of both sets of variables was calculated. Results: A dislocation occurred after 115 (7.4%) of 1548 revision hip arthroplasties. The use of an elevated rim liner was associated with significant decreases (p < 0.05) in dislocation following revision of femoral and acetabular components. The presence of trochanteric nonunion was a significant risk factor for subsequent dislocation (p < 0.001). Revisions with 32-mm and 28-mm-diameter femoral heads were both more stable than was revision with a 22-mm-diameter head (p < 0.05 for each). Surgery was the initial treatment for twelve of the 115 dislocations. Six of the twelve hips had no further instability. Of the 103 postoperative dislocations initially managed nonoperatively, only thirty-six did not redislocate. Thirty-eight of the sixty-seven hips that had an additional dislocation after closed treatment had repeat surgery for treatment of the instability. Only eleven of the thirty-eight hips were stable at one year after surgery. Overall, at the time of the final assessment, sixty-five (57%) of the 115 hips were stable, forty-one (36%) remained unstable, and the status of nine (8%) was unknown. Conclusions: The risk factors for instability after a total hip revision are not the same as those after a primary procedure. The extent of the soft-tissue dissection is probably the most important variable since head size and trochanteric nonunion are related to \\\"soft-tissue tension.\\\" Modular acetabular components with an elevated rim help to stabilize a hip undergoing a revision procedure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"397\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200210000-00008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200210000-00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 397

摘要

背景:脱位是翻修型全髋关节置换术失败的主要原因。虽然这一事实普遍得到公认,但我们知道迄今为止还没有对这一问题的详细评估。因此,我们的目的是评估导致翻修后不稳定的危险因素以及各种治疗策略的预期结果。方法:数据来自1405例患者的1548例翻修性关节置换术,随访至少2年(范围:2.0年至16.4年;平均8.1年)或直到脱位发生。由于不稳定性而进行的修订被排除在分析之外。风险因素与治疗策略及其成功一起被记录。计算两组变量的统计相关性。结果:1548例髋关节置换术翻修后发生脱位115例(7.4%)。在股骨和髋臼假体翻修后,使用升高的边缘衬套与脱位的显著减少相关(p < 0.05)。转子不愈合是继发脱位的重要危险因素(p < 0.001)。32 mm和28 mm股骨头矫正比22 mm股骨头矫正更稳定(p < 0.05)。手术是115例脱位中12例的初始治疗方法。12个髋关节中有6个没有进一步的不稳定。103例术后脱位最初采用非手术治疗,只有36例没有再脱位。67个髋关节中有38个在闭合治疗后发生额外脱位,需要重复手术来治疗不稳定。38个髋关节中只有11个在手术后一年保持稳定。总的来说,在最终评估时,115个髋关节中有65个(57%)是稳定的,41个(36%)仍然不稳定,9个(8%)的状态未知。结论:全髋关节翻修后不稳定的危险因素与初次手术后不同。软组织剥离的程度可能是最重要的变量,因为头部大小和粗隆不愈合与“软组织张力”有关。模块化髋臼组件与升高的边缘有助于稳定髋关节翻修程序。
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
Dislocation After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Risk Factors and Treatment Options
Background: Dislocation is a leading and underemphasized cause of failure in revision total hip arthroplasty. Although this fact is generally well recognized, we are aware of no detailed assessments of this problem to date. Our purpose therefore was to evaluate the risk factors leading to instability after revision as well as the expected outcome of various treatment strategies. Methods: Data were obtained from 1548 revision arthroplasties in 1405 patients who were followed for a minimum of two years (range, 2.0 to 16.4 years; mean, 8.1 years) or until dislocation occurred. Revisions specifically performed because of instability were excluded from the analysis. Risk factors were recorded along with treatment strategies and their success. The statistical relevance of both sets of variables was calculated. Results: A dislocation occurred after 115 (7.4%) of 1548 revision hip arthroplasties. The use of an elevated rim liner was associated with significant decreases (p < 0.05) in dislocation following revision of femoral and acetabular components. The presence of trochanteric nonunion was a significant risk factor for subsequent dislocation (p < 0.001). Revisions with 32-mm and 28-mm-diameter femoral heads were both more stable than was revision with a 22-mm-diameter head (p < 0.05 for each). Surgery was the initial treatment for twelve of the 115 dislocations. Six of the twelve hips had no further instability. Of the 103 postoperative dislocations initially managed nonoperatively, only thirty-six did not redislocate. Thirty-eight of the sixty-seven hips that had an additional dislocation after closed treatment had repeat surgery for treatment of the instability. Only eleven of the thirty-eight hips were stable at one year after surgery. Overall, at the time of the final assessment, sixty-five (57%) of the 115 hips were stable, forty-one (36%) remained unstable, and the status of nine (8%) was unknown. Conclusions: The risk factors for instability after a total hip revision are not the same as those after a primary procedure. The extent of the soft-tissue dissection is probably the most important variable since head size and trochanteric nonunion are related to "soft-tissue tension." Modular acetabular components with an elevated rim help to stabilize a hip undergoing a revision procedure.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What's Important: Moving Orthopaedic Patient Care Forward: Tips for Successful Systems Improvement. No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA. Short-Term Complications of Arthroscopic Bristow or Latarjet Procedure with Screw Versus Suture-Button Fixation: A Prospective Study of 308 Consecutive Cases by a Single Surgeon. Do Half of Orthopaedic Surgeons Change Jobs within Their First 2 Years?: An Analysis Using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. What's Important: Breaking Bread Together, Finding an Extracurricular Pursuit.
×
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