人工髋关节置换术后翻修病例分析

目的分析人工髋关节置换术后翻修的原因,评价全髋翻修术的临床效果。方法本组33例34髋。初次关节置换类型:全髋置换21例,双杯髋关节置换1例,人工股骨头置换11例。翻修原因:无菌性松动23例24髋,髋臼位置不良1例1髋,股骨头置换后髋臼磨损5例5髋,感染4例4髋。翻修距初次手术时间:1年以内5髋,1～2年1髋,5～10年18髋,10～13年10髋。翻修假体类型:非骨水泥型假体20髋,混合型假体7髋,骨水泥型假体7髋。结果平均随访3.5年。1例术后半年发生股骨柄松动进行再翻修,其余病例假体保留,优良率为82.4%。结论翻修的最常见原因为无菌性松动,人工股骨头置换时髋臼磨损也是翻修原因之一,对较年轻的股骨颈骨折患者,如行假体置换,最好采用全髋关节置换。翻修术采用非骨水泥型假体较好。     

全髋关节置换及翻修术后坐骨神经损伤的原因探讨

目的 通过对655例行全髋关节置换及翻修术患者的回顾性分析，探讨术后出现坐骨神经损伤的原因并提出相应的预防措施。方法 1998年1月～2001年12月，对655倒髋关节病变的患者行手术治疗．其中全髋关节置换术587例，全髋关节翻修术68例，术后有9例出现坐骨神经损伤．发生率为1.37％。其中8例发生在全髋关节置换术后，1例发生在全髋关节翻修术后，9例患者中，男3例，女6例；年龄35～67岁，平均51岁，9例患者中4例因股骨头缺血性坏死、2例因先天性髋臼发育不良合并髋关节骨关节炎、1例因强直性脊柱炎合并髋部病变、1例因类风湿关节炎合并髋部病变、1例因全髋关节假体松动而行全髋关节置换术。非骨水泥固定8例，骨水泥固定1例。9例坐骨神经损伤的患者中．7例因肢体不等长而同时行下肢延长术．2例因髋部强直而同时行松解术，结果 9例术后出现坐骨神经损伤的患者．8例为单纯腓总神经损伤．临床表现为足不能背伸；1例为腓总神经和胫神经联合损伤．临床表现为足不能背伸和跖屈。术后随访6～48个月，平均31个月.其中8例患者术后半年坐骨神经功能全部恢复；1例患者术后半年坐骨神经功能仍未恢复．遂行切开探查松解术．探查术后1年坐骨神经功能部分恢复。结论 全髋关节置换及翻修术后坐骨神经损伤．多由下肢过度延长或机械性压迫所致，大多数不完全损伤可以恢复.     

Dislocation after revision of hemiarthroplasty to total hip replacement

Over a 3-year period, nine hemiarthroplasties were revised to total hip arthroplasty. The hemiarthroplasties were all performed for an original diagnosis of subcapital fracture, and the revisions were for a variety of indications including instability, loosening and acetabular erosion. Four of the revised prostheses subsequently dislocated, and one has recurrent subluxation. This dislocation rate of 50% is higher than previously reported. Factors contributing to this are discussed. These include: previous strokes, advanced age, difficulty complying with instructions, and a hip capsule not contracted by osteoarthritis. Preventative factors are discussed. It is imperative to treat this group of patients differently from those having other hip arthroplasties, and to consider prophylactic bracing post-operatively. The capsule or pseudo-capsule should be preserved wherever possible.     

Timing of the revision total hip replacement

The purpose of this article is to define guidelines in regard to timing of revision surgery for total hip replacement. One important variable, in addition to incapacitating pain, is the presence of progressive bone loss associated with loose implants. Indications for revision are presented based on the immediacy of the situation. Timing for revision is categorized as immediate, delayed up to 6 months, delayed beyond 6 months, and elective. Clinical examples of indications are included. Useful diagnostic studies for evaluating the need for revision surgery are discussed. These procedures include several types of arthrography to aid in differential diagnosis.     

The role of trochanteric wire revision after total hip replacement

Fifty-nine cases of trochanteric wire revision following hip arthroplasty with trochanteric osteotomy and reattachment were identified and their outcome was studied. Two were infected and were excluded. Five were revised for instability: four became stable while one continued to have persistent dislocation. Fifty-two were revised for pain, 36 by removal of the trochanteric wire and 16 by reattachment of the greater trochanter. Successful relief of pain was obtained in less than half the cases. There was no difference in the incidence of back pain, wiring technique, trochanteric advancement, previous surgery to the same hip, trochanteric size or the pattern of wire breakage in the successfully treated group and the unsuccessful group. Neither was the removal of intact wire from a united trochanter any more certain of relieving pain than removal of broken wire from an un-united trochanter. Six patients later required revision for loosening or infection. These results indicate the need for full radiological and haematological investigation before exploration of the greater trochanter. At exploration for pain the wires should simply be removed as we could show no successful union after late reattachment of the trochanter in the absence of instability.     

Age at hip or knee joint replacement surgery predicts likelihood of revision surgery

We compared revision and mortality rates of 4668 patients undergoing primary total hip and knee replacement between 1989 and 2007 at a University Hospital in New Zealand. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years (16 to 100). A total of 1175 patients (25%) had died at follow-up at a mean of ten years post-operatively. The mean age of those who died within ten years of surgery was 74.4 years (29 to 97) at time of surgery. No change in comorbidity score or age of the patients receiving joint replacement was noted during the study period. No association of revision or death could be proven with higher comorbidity scoring, grade of surgeon, or patient gender. We found that patients younger than 50 years at the time of surgery have a greater chance of requiring a revision than of dying, those around 58 years of age have a 50:50 chance of needing a revision, and in those older than 62 years the prosthesis will normally outlast the patient. Patients over 77 years old have a greater than 90% chance of dying than requiring a revision whereas those around 47 years are on average twice as likely to require a revision than die. This information can be used to rationalise the need for long-term surveillance and during the informed consent process.     

人工髋关节置换术后5年内翻修的原因分析及处理方法

目的 探讨初次髋关节置换术后早期翻修的原因和防治方法.方法 回顾性分析2002年1月至2007年6月55例行人工髋关节翻修术患者的资料,其中术后5年内(含5年)翻修11例,翻修原因及翻修方式为:髋臼假体位置不良导致复发性脱位2例,手术调整髋臼假体位置;髋臼假体松动5例,翻修髋臼和(或)股骨假体;术后早期股骨假体周围骨折2例,行骨折复位固定;股骨头磨损髋臼1例,行全髋翻修;感染1例,行二期手术翻修.术前和术后随访采用Harris评分评估髋关节功能.术前Harris评分平均46分(28～62分).结果 本组随访时间16～76个月,平均36个月.术后Harris评分提高至平均86分(75～96分).术后出现并发症2例:1例术后局部血肿形成,4周后需再次手术清理血肿;1例术后关节不稳,经适当牵引制动后关节不稳定现象消失.无感染、深静脉血栓、主要血管和神经损伤等并发症发生.结论 初次髋关节置换早期翻修主要原因与髋臼假体处理、假体选择和安放技术不当有关,因此提高髋臼假体安放的手术技术有助于改善人工髋关节的疗效.     

Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision total hip replacement

A prospective cohort of 222 patients who underwent revision hip replacement between April 2001 and March 2004 was evaluated to determine predictors of function, pain and activity level between one and two years post-operatively, and to define quality of life outcomes using validated patient reported outcome tools. Predictive models were developed and proportional odds regression analyses were performed to identify factors that predict quality of life outcomes at one and two years post-operatively. The dependent outcome variables were the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function and pain scores, and University of California Los Angeles activity scores. The independent variables included patient demographics, operative factors, and objective quality of life parameters, including pre-operative WOMAC, and the Short Form-12 mental component score. There was a significant improvement (t-test, p < 0.001) in all patient quality of life scores. In the predictive model, factors predictive of improved function (original regression analyses, p < 0.05) included a higher pre-operative WOMAC function score (p < 0.001), age between 60 and 70 years (p < 0.037), male gender (p = 0.017), lower Charnley class (p < 0.001) and aseptic loosening being the indication for revision (p < 0.003). Using the WOMAC pain score as an outcome variable, factors predictive of improvement included the pre-operative WOMAC function score (p = 0.001), age between 60 and 70 years (p = 0.004), male gender (p = 0.005), lower Charnley class (p = 0.001) and no previous revision procedure (p = 0.023). The pre-operative WOMAC function score (p = 0.001), the indication for the operation (p = 0.007), and the operating surgeon (p = 0.008) were significant predictors of the activity assessment at follow-up. Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision hip replacement were established. Although some patient-specific and surgery-specific variables were important, age, gender, Charnley class and pre-operative WOMAC function score had the most robust associations with outcome.     

A revision prosthesis for the hip joint

Following loosening of total hip prostheses increasing bone resorption occurs around the prosthesis, which can lead to extensive bony defects. In this paper a revision prosthesis for the femur is presented, which is fixed in the distal marrow cavity without cement, bridging the damaged prosthesis bed and stabilizing the femur. Vigorous bony regeneration begins in the resorption defects, which makes good the loss of bone substance. The revision prosthesis described for the cup is also implanted without cement. It allows additional fixation with screws and also onlay grafting, so that even when the acetabulum is badly damaged it is possible to change the prosthesis to obtain a good functional result and also allow recovery of the bone.     

Bone substitution in revision hip replacement

The aim of this retrospective study was to report the preliminary results of femoral peri-prosthetic bone defect reconstruction with a synthetic bone substitute. Twenty-one revisions of the femoral component in 20 patients were evaluated. The mean age at operation was 65.7 years (range, 30 to 79 years). Preoperative femoral deficiencies were rated grade II in 7 cases and grade III in 14 cases according to the SOFCOT classification. None was rated grade IV. Femoral revision was indicated for loosening in 18 hips (including 8 septic cases), femoral osteolysis (1 hip), persistent pain (1 hip) and recurrent dislocation (1 hip). Once the loose prosthesis had been removed, calcium phosphate ceramic (CPC) granules (14 cases) or ceramic granules + cancellous allograft (5 cases) or autograft (2) were firmly impacted in the femoral canal. The stem was standard and always cemented using modern cementing technique. At a mean follow-up of 36 months (range, 14 to 76 months), 90% of the hips were rated good or very good according to the Merle d'Aubigné score. Two diaphyseal femoral fractures occurred and later united. Two hips required re-revision (aseptic loosening; septic recurrence). The absence of radiological osteolysis in 17 cases suggested direct bonding between ceramic granules and bone. Stem subsidence occurred in two cases and was limited (5 and 8 mm). Femoral bone reconstruction using impacted CPC or CPC in conjunction with bone graft in revision hip replacement commonly provided restoration of the bone stock in the short to mid-term. Further long-term studies will be necessary to support this conclusion.     

人工髋关节置换术后翻修原因分析

目的:分析人工髋关节置换术后翻修的原因,并评价其疗效。方法:本组30例(31髋)行人工髋关节置换术后翻修术,男12例,女18例,平均年龄63.1岁(47~74岁)。初次关节置换类型:全髋置换19例(20髋),人工股骨头置换11例。翻修原因:3例(3髋)为感染性松动,余均为无菌性松动。翻修距初次手术时间:1年以内1髋,2~3年3髋,8~10年21髋,10~15年6髋。翻修假体类型:均为混合型假体,国产12例(12髋),进口18例(19髋)。X线评价包括翻修前骨缺损,翻修前后的下肢长度,股骨偏心距,前倾角。临床功能评价采用Harris评分。结果:30例均获随访,平均随访时间4.1年,术后所有患者双下肢基本等长(差距小于1 cm)。偏心距、前倾角、颈干角恢复至初次手术前水平,术后3个月均完全负重,髋关节疼痛除2例外其余完全缓解,至最后1次随访时,按Harris评分,优16髋,良10髋,可4髋,差1髋。无感染及髋关节脱位发生。结论:翻修的常见原因为无菌性松动、髋臼磨损和感染性松动;髋关节翻修是一种近期疗效满意的方法。     

股骨偏心距和髋臼旋转中心对人工全髋置换术后关节功能影响的回顾性研究

[目的]通过股骨偏心距及髋臼旋转中心手术后测量,探讨其变化对人工全髋置换术后关节功能的影响。[方法]临床随访本院人工全髋置换术后患者87例(92髋),均为首次行全髋关节置换术患者,平均随访时间2年1个月,测量手术后双髋关节X线片,比较术后假体股骨偏心距、旋转中心与解剖股骨偏心距、旋转中心符合率,对患者术后髋关节功能进行Harris评分并分组进行统计学分析。[结果]股骨偏心距及髋臼旋转中心均恢复(A组)27例(29.35%),(B组)仅FO恢复23例(25.00%),(C组)仅HJC恢复31例(33.70%),(D组)FO及HJC均未恢复11例(11.96%),Harris评分优良率A组96.30%,B组为73.19%,C组为74.19%,D组为27.27%,Harris评分优良率A组与B组(P=0.039),A组与C组(P=0.029),A组与D组(P=0.000)差异均有统计学意义。[结论]股骨偏心距及旋转中心的恢复对人工全髋置换术后关节功能有直接影响。