骨水泥假体与生物型假体在髋关节初次置换中的临床应用研究

目的比较骨水泥假体与生物型假体不同固定方式在髋关节初次置换术中的临床疗效,探讨假体选择适应证。方法采用骨水泥型人工全髋关节置换术治疗髋关节疾病患者89例89髋,同期采用生物型人工全髋关节置换术92例92髋。对比两组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、输血率、患者卧床时间、使用助步器的时间、并发症、假体位置、术后Harris髋评分结果进行分析。结果生物型假体平均手术时间方面有优势且差异显著（P〈0.05）;骨水泥型假体组较生物型假体组在患者术中出血量、术后引流量、卧床时间、使用助步器的时间等方面有优势且差异显著（P〈0.05）。骨水泥型假体组术后早期Harris髋评分较生物型假体组高,功能恢复较生物型假体组快。结论正确识别发生并发症的高危因素,严格掌握适应证,选择骨水泥假体与生物型假体,在髋关节初次置换中均可获得良好的治疗效果。

Preliminary study of the clinical assessment between the cemented prosthesis and biological prosthesis in the primary total hip arthroplasty surgery

Objective To compare the clinical effect and approach the indication between the biological prosthesis and cemented prosthesis in the primary total hip arthroplasty surgery.Methods A total of 89 patients（89 hips） were performed with the cemented prosthesis THA.For comparison,92 patients（92 hips） were performed with biological prosthesis THA at the same period.The comparative items included operation time,blood loss,blood transfusion,ambulatory time,complication incidence,time of use walking aid,the Harris hip score after the operation.Results The biological prosthesis was found to have a significantly advantages of operation time（P 0.05）;and the cemented prosthesis was found to have a significantly advantages of blood loss,blood transfusion,ambulatory time,time of use walking aids（P 0.05）.The Harris hip score at the early stage after operation was significant statistically difference.It showed that the recovery of function was rapid in cemented prosthesis THA at the early stage.Conclusion The cemented prosthesis and the biological prosthesis in the primary total hip arthroplasty can be good methods,but the operation indication should be chosen strictly and the risk factors for complications should be correctly identified.