螺旋型髋臼与压配型髋臼的临床应用分析

背景：在人工全髋关节置换髋臼假体的选择上，多数研究认为螺旋型髋臼较压配型髋臼能的稳定性好。目的：对比螺旋型髋臼与压配型髋臼两种不同全髋关节置换的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析选择螺旋型髋臼与压配型髋臼两种不同人工全髋关节置换39例患者临床资料。结果与结论：①随访时间：随访4~51个月，平均32.6个月。②Harris评分：末次随访时两组Harris评分均较置换前明显提高(P < 0.05)，且螺旋型髋臼假体组稍高于压配型髋臼假体组，但差异无显著性意义。③不良反应：压配型髋臼假体组置换1年后松动1例，术后行走疼痛3例，髋臼假体周围成骨6例，髋臼假体周围出现透亮带3例，髋臼假体周围骨硬化1例，髋臼假体周围骨吸收1例；螺旋型髋臼假体组髋臼假体周围成骨3例，髋臼假体周围出现透亮带1例，髋臼假体周围骨吸收1例。表明螺旋型髋臼假体的初始稳定性优于压配型髋臼假体。 

Clinical application of spiral-type acetabulum and press-fit acetabulum

BACKGROUND: Most studies suggest that the spiral-type acetabulum of total hip arthroplasty (THA) could provide better stability than the press-fit acetabulum.OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of press-fit acetabulum and spiral-type acetabulum in THA.METHODS: The retrospective analysis on the clinical data of 39 THA patients with press-fit acetabulum and spiral-type acetabulum was preformed.  RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: ①All cases were followed-up for 4-51 months, the average time was 32.6 months. ②Harris scores: Postoperative Harris scores were significantly improved than preoperative in the final follow-up (P < 0.05), and the score of the spiral-type acetabular group was slightly higher than that of press-fit acetabular group, but the difference was not significant. ③Adverse reactions: The postoperative complications of the press-fit acetabular arthroplasty group included looseness of hip prosthesis 1 case after 1 year, ambulation pain 3 cases, osteogenesis around acetabular prosthesis 6 cases, translucent around acetabular prosthesis 3 cases, osteosclerosis around acetabular prosthesis 1 case and bone resorption around acetabular prosthesis 1 case; the spiral-type acetabular group included osteogenesis around acetabular prosthesis 3 cases, translucent around acetabular prosthesis 1 cases and bone resorption around acetabular prosthesis 1 case. Therefore, the initial stability of the spiral-type acetabular prosthesis was better than that of the press-fit acetabular prosthesis.