切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华关节外科杂志(电子版)

中华关节外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2018, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (04) : 454 -461. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2018.04.003

所属专题： 文献；

临床论著

生物型髋关节假体位置参数与患者生命质量相关性研究
刘玉宝1, 邹瑞1, 林禄攀1, 赵清华1, 温传阳1, 郭玉祥1, 林福庆1,†()   
  1. 1. 211500　南京市六合区人民医院骨二科
  • 收稿日期:2017-04-08 出版日期:2018-08-01
  • 通信作者: 林福庆
  • 基金资助:
    南京市科技发展计划项目(201605072)

Relationship between life quality and prosthesis position parameters after cementless total hip arthroplasty

Yubao Liu1, Rui Zou1, Lupan Lin1, Qinghua Zhao1, Chuanyang Wen1, Yuxiang Guo1, Fuqing Lin1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Luhe Hospital Affiliated to Medical School of Yangzhou University, Nanjing 211500, China
  • Received:2017-04-08 Published:2018-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Fuqing Lin
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Lin Fuqing, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

刘玉宝, 邹瑞, 林禄攀, 赵清华, 温传阳, 郭玉祥, 林福庆. 生物型髋关节假体位置参数与患者生命质量相关性研究[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(04): 454-461.

Yubao Liu, Rui Zou, Lupan Lin, Qinghua Zhao, Chuanyang Wen, Yuxiang Guo, Fuqing Lin. Relationship between life quality and prosthesis position parameters after cementless total hip arthroplasty[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2018, 12(04): 454-461.

目的

分析初次生物型全髋关节置换术(THA)后假体位置重建情况，探讨假体位置参数与患者生命质量的相关性，总结假体位相参数的安全范围。

方法

对南京市六合区人民医院骨科2013年3月至2015年3月52例因股骨颈骨折行初次生物型全髋关节置换术的患者进行2年的前瞻性研究。术后第3天未负重前首次拍摄患侧髋关节正侧位及骨盆正位X线片，分析髋臼及股骨柄假体的位置参数，包括髋臼外展角、髋臼前倾角、股骨头旋转中心、股骨垂直偏距、股骨偏心距、外展肌力臂、重力力臂、股骨柄内外翻、颈干角。术前和术后24个月对患者进行评估健康相关生命质量的SF-36简明健康状况调查量表(SF-36)评分。采用SPSS 17.0软件对量表进行Cronbach's (系数同质性分析、Pearson相关分析、因子分析及t检验以评价其信效度，并评价假体位置参数与SF-36各项评分提高值之间的相关性。

结果

52名患者(52髋)均完成了随访，根据THA术后首次X线片获取假体位置参数。除情感职能外，手术前后的SF-36量表内部一致性显示Cronbach's α系数>0.7；重测信度显示相关系数(CC)ICC>0.8；分半信度显示Pearson相关系数>0.874；反应度显示SF-36量表能较好地反应THA患者手术前后的生命质量变化状况；结构效应单因子分析结果示全部36个条目在各自维度上的因子载荷为0.23～0.87(P<0.05)，其中3个条目的载荷小于0.30。多因子分析结果χ2/df＝3.16，拟合优度指数(GFI)＝0.892，近似误差均方根(RMSEA)＝0.089，表明SF-36的各拟舍指数均在可被接受水平；证明SF-36的内部结构与其理论架构有很高的一致性。假体位置参数与SF-36各维度的相关系数都为正数，除GH外SF-36各维度与髋臼假体位相参数间相关系数均大于0.6，SF-36各维度与髋关节旋转中心体位相参数间高度相关，SF-36中活力(VT)、社会功能(SF)、情感职能(RE)及精神健康(MH)与股骨垂直偏距间相关系数大于0.7，SF-36中各维度与两侧股骨偏心距比例参数间相关系数均大于0.7，SF-36中SF、MH与外展肌力臂及重力力臂相参数间相关系数大于0.8，余者均大于0.7，SF-36各维度与股骨柄假体位相参数间相关系数在0.329～0.757之间，SF-36中生理功能(PF)、生理职能(RP)、社会功能(SF)与颈干角位相参数间相关系数在大于0.7。

结论

SF-36量表信度、效度均较好，可用以评估THA患者生命质量。股骨颈骨折患者的生命质量在各个领域均明显低于正常人，THA术后均得到改善。SF-36各维度可全面反映患者心理、生理及社会生活状态下的生命质量。通过对假体位相参数与SF-36各维度间的相关系数分析认为：髋臼外展角及前倾角的适当范围分别为(45±5)°、(15±5)°；颈干角应控制在(125±10)°内；髋臼假体应置于髋臼解剖位置上，以健侧为参照重建旋转中心；术后患侧肢体长度较健侧缩短不宜超过10 mm；避免减小股骨偏心距、外展肌及重力力臂；尽量保持股骨柄中立位。

关键词: 生物假体, 关节成形术，置换，髋, 生活质量
Objective

To analyze the conditions of hip prosthesis reconstruction and to probe into the relationship of the life quality and the safe range of the prosthesis position parameters.

Methods

Based on a prospective study design, from March 2013 to March 2015, 52 eligible patients (52 hips) who had had total hip arthroplasty were interviewed and measured by the short form 36-item health survey (SF-36) before and two years after the operation. The anteroposterior pelvis, anteroposterior and lateral hip joint X-rays were taken at the third day after the operation to analyze the prosthesis position parameters of acetabulum and the femoral prosthesis, including acetabulum abducent and anteversion angles, femoral head rotation center position, femoral eccentricity, femoral vertical setover, length of abductor and gravity lever arm, femoral prosthesis varus and valgus, neck shaft angle. SF-36 was used to evaluate the patient′s quality of life before and two years after the operation. SPSS 17.0 was applied to analyze the reliability and validity of SF-36 and evaluate the relationship between quality of life and prosthesis position parameters after cementless total hip arthroplasty by Pearson analysis and t test.

Results

All the patients (52 hips) completed the follow-up, and prosthesis position parameters were obtained from X-ray after THA. Except role emotional (RE), the internal consistency of before and after opration of SF-36 determined by Cronbach's alpha coefficient were greater than 0.7. Test-retest reliability of SF-36 expressed by intraclass corre-lation coefficient(ICC) were greater than 0.80. The half-split reliability expressed by Pearson correlation coefficient(CC) was greater than 0.874. The validity was good at showing the life quality changes of patients before and after the surgery. Except vitality(VT), content validity evaluated by Pearson CC were higher than 0.7 between most dimensions and items of SF-36. CC between the prosthesis position parameters and the items of SF-36 were positive value. Except general health(GH), CC between the items of SF-36 and acetabulum prosthesis position parameters were greater than 0.6, and highly relevant between the items of SF-36 and femoral head rotation center position; CC were greater than 0.7 between femoral vertical setvover and VT, social function(SF), RE and mental healt(MH), the same to femoral eccentricity; CC were larger than 0.8 between length of abductor and gravity lever arm and SF and MH, the left data were greater than 0.7; CC between femoral prosthesis and items of SF-36 ranged from 0.329 to 0.757; CC between the items of SF-36 and neck shaft angle were greater than 0.7.

Conclusions

SF-36 has good reliability and validity so that they can be used to evaluate the quality of life for THA patient. The life quality of patients with femoral neck fracture is lower than normal, while it can get much better after the operation. SF-36 can reflect the patient's psychological, physiological and social life of quality of life. The suitable range of acetabulum abducent and anteversion angles are (45±5)° and (15±5)°. The neck shaft angle should be kept in (125±10)°. Acetabulum prosthesis should be placed in the acetabulum anatomy, and the contralateral normal side as reference to rebuild femoral head rotation center position. The length of the operated hip joint is shorter than the contralateral side, which should not be more than 10 mm. Shortening of femoral eccentricity, length of abductor and gravity lever arm should be avoided, and femoral prosthesis shall be kept at neutral position.

Key words: Bioprosthesis, Arthroplasty, replacement, hip, Quality of life
表1 髋关节假体位相参数[n＝52，(±s)]
假体位置 平均参数
髋臼外展角(°) 43.7±5.3
髋臼前倾角(°) 16.1±4.5
旋转中心(°) ?
水平距离比值(%) 91.7±10.5
垂直距离比值(%) 117.5±37.8
股骨垂直偏距比值(%) 89.3±16.2
股骨偏心距比值(%) 104.6±18.6
外展肌力臂比值(%) 95.4±6.4
重力力臂比值(%) 96.7±8.7
股骨柄内、外翻(°) 2.6±1.1
颈干角(°) 126.4±10.3
表2 THA患者SF-36量表各维度间、各维度与总量表间相关性系数r值及Cronbach's α系数(n＝52)
? PF RP BP GH VT SF RE MH
PF 1.000 0.650 0.696 0.617 0.620 0.610 0.661 0.682
RP － 1.000 0.691 0.632 0.507 0.493 0.562 0.584
BP － － 1.000 0.650 0.555 0.598 0.517 0.637
GH － － － 1.000 0.686 0.555 0.519 0.638
VT － － － － 1.000 0.502 0.379 0.557
SF － － － － － 1.000 0.534 0.639
RE － － － － － － 1.000 0.539
MH － － － － － － － 1.000
共计 0.706 0.744 0.721 0.746 0.463 0.718 0.745 0.733
Cronbach's α系数 0.758 0.679 0.743 0.736 0.692 0.771 0.686 0.847
表3 SF-36量表各维度及总量表的ICC(n＝13)
维度 ICC 95%可信区间 P值
PF 0.835 (0.659，0.967) <0.01
RP 0.819 (0.657，0.981) <0.01
BP 0.874 (0.820，0.903) <0.01
GH 0.899 (0.871，0.925) <0.01
VT 0.823 (0.754，0.912) <0.01
SF 0.859 (0.768，0.917) <0.01
RE 0.902 (0.795，0.924) <0.01
MH 0.827 (0.699，0.908) <0.01
总分 0.817 (0.689，0.854) <0.01
表4 THA前后的SF-36评分[n＝52，(±s)]
? PF RP BP GH VT SF RE MH
术前 30±13 13±9 31±13 50±14 47±17 51±16 36±27 60±12
术后 56±8 40±17 63±13 62±10 58±15 62±15 67±25 71±10
提高率(%) 89.8 197.1 107.5 22.7 23.3 21.9 88.8 17.7
t值 2.20 －3.40 3.26 －4.72 －3.5 3.74 1.81 2.35
P值 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
表5 单因子分析整体度量模型拟合优度(n＝52)
? PF RP BP GH VT SF RE MH
χ2/df 2.052 2.471 1.316 1.698 1.902 1.503 1.536 1.724
RMSEA 0.039 0.041 0.047 0.052 0.033 0.055 0.041 0.054
GFI 0.972 0.981 0.937 0.942 0.965 0.968 0.949 0.957
SRMR 0.095 0.094 0.079 0.089 0.092 0.087 0.095 0.093
表6 假体位置参数与SF-36各项评分之间的相关性系数r值(n＝52)
位置参数 PF RP BP GH VT SF RE MH
髋臼外展角 0.715 0.755 0.728 0.317* 0.739 0.714 0.661 0.713
髋臼前倾角 0.786 0.709 0.731 0.389* 0.718 0.623 0.612 0.701
旋转中心水平距离 0.740 0.728 0.768 0.507* 0.737 0.602 0.719 0.757
旋转中心垂直距离 0.735 0.741 0.733 0.482* 0.708 0.687 0.645 0.724
股骨垂直偏距 0.671 0.539* 0.488* 0.597* 0.739 0.712 0.754 0.738
股骨偏心距 0.858 0.797 0.709 0.703 0.745 0.739 0.751 0.762
外展肌力臂 0.727 0.709 0.718 0.733 0.737 0.850 0.791 0.846
重力力臂 0.731 0.786 0.725 0.719 0.798 0.816 0.706 0.827
股骨柄内、外翻 0.734 0.652 0.757 0.329* 0.541* 0.489* 0.708 0.726
颈干角 0.750 0.771 0.496* 0.486* 0.607 0.681 0.624 0.633
[1]
Perry DC, Metcalfe D, Griffin XL, et al. Inequalities in use of total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture: population based study[J/OL]. BMJ, 2016, 353:i2021. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2021
[2]
Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2015, 97(17):1386-1397.
[3]
周定，臧谋圣，胡勇，等．骨水泥与非骨水泥股骨柄在初次全髋关节置换术后疗效的Meta分析[J/CD]．中华关节外科杂志(电子版)，2014，8(5):635-642.
[4]
Umehara N, Mitani S, Namba Y. Factors influencing health-related quality of Life after total hip arthroplasty[J]. Acta Med Okayama, 2016, 70(2):89-95.
[5]
Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Adib F, et al. Determining health-related quality-of-life outcomes using the SF-6D following total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2017, 99(6):494-498.
[6]
Pradhan R. Planar anteversion of the acetabular cup as determined from plain anteroposterior radiographs[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1999, 81(3):431-435.
[7]
陈凯，蔡俊丰，秦玉星，等．髋臼发育不良全髋关节置换术髋臼旋转中心原位固定与上移的比较研究[J/CD]．中华关节外科杂志(电子版)，2014，8(1):56-59.
[8]
李鲁，王红妹，沈毅．SF-36健康调查量表中文版的研制及其性能测试[J]．中华预防医学杂志，2002，36(2):109-113.
[9]
Ye CY, Liu A, Xu MY, et al. Arthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular femoral neck fracture in the elderly: systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term effectiveness[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2016, 129(21):2630-2638.
[10]
Koutras C, Antoniou SA, Talias MA, et al. Impact of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty on health-related quality of life measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(11):1938-1952.
[11]
Shan L, Shan B, Graham D, et al. Total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis on mid-term quality of life[J]. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2014, 22(3):389-406.
[12]
Osborne RH, Hawthorne G, Lew EA, et al. Quality of Life assessment in the community-dwelling elderly: validation of the assessment of quality of Life (AQoL) instrument and comparison with the SF-36[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2003, 56(2):138-147.
[13]
Ezquerra L, Quilez MP, Pérez Má，et al. Range of movement for impingement and dislocation avoidance in total hip replacement predicted by finite element model[J]. J Med Biol Eng, 2017, 37(1):26-34.
[14]
Ha YC, Yoo JJ, Lee YK, et al. Acetabular component positioning using anatomic landmarks of the acetabulum[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(12):3515-3523.
[15]
Slotkin EM, Patel PD, Suarez JC. Accuracy of fluoroscopic guided acetabular component positioning during direct anterior total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(9 Suppl):102-106.
[16]
Varadarajan KM, Zumbrunn T, Duffy MP, et al. Reducing the distal profile of dual mobility liners can mitigate soft-tissue impingement and liner entrapment without affecting mechanical performance[J]. J Orthop Res, 2016, 34(5):889-897.
[17]
Nakanowatari T, Suzukamo Y, Izumi SI. The effectiveness of specific exercise approach or modifiable heel lift in the treatment of functional leg length discrepancy in early post-surgery inpatients after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial with a PROBE design[J]. Phy Ther Res, 2016, 19(1):39-49.
[18]
Lee SJ, Yoo JJ, Kim HJ. Cementless total hip arthroplasty involving trochanteric osteotomy without subtrochanteric shortening for high hip dislocation[J]. Clin Orthop Surg, 2017, 9(1):19-28.
[19]
Sariali E, Klouche S, Mouttet A, et al. The effect of femoral offset modification on gait after total hip arthroplasty[J]. Acta Orthop, 2014, 85(2):123-127.
[20]
Boese CK, Bredow J, Ettinger M, et al. The influence of hip rotation on femoral offset following short stem total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2016, 31(1):312-316.
[21]
Bjørdal F, Bjørgul K. The role of femoral offset and abductor lever arm in total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Orthop Traumatol, 2015, 16(4):325-330.
[22]
García-Rey E, García-Cimbrelo E. Abductor biomechanics clinically impact the total hip arthroplasty dislocation rate: a prospective Long-Term study[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2016, 31(2):484-490.
[23]
Ikeda T, Jinno T, Aizawa J, et al. Effects of perioperative factors and hip geometry on hip abductor muscle strength during the first 6 months after anterolateral total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Phy Ther Sci, 2017, 29(2):295-300.
[24]
Abujaber SB, Marmon AR, Pozzi F, et al. Sit-to-stand biomechanics before and after total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(11):2027-2033.
[25]
Fink B, Lass R. Diagnostic algorithm for failure analysis of painful total hip arthroplasties[J]. Z Orthop Unfall, 2016, 154(5):527-544.
[26]
Mahmood SS, Mukka SS, Crnalic S, et al. Association between changes in global femoral offset after total hip arthroplasty and function, quality of life, and abductor muscle strength. A prospective cohort study of 222 patients[J]. Acta Orthop, 2016, 87(1):36-41.
[27]
Tezuka T, Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, et al. Effects of hip joint center location and femoral offset on abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty[J]. Modern Rheumatology, 2015, 25(4):630-636.
[1] 金鑫, 谢卯, 刘芸, 杨操, 杨述华, 许伟华. 个性化股骨导向器辅助初次全髋关节置换的随机对照研究[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 780-787.
[2] 孟繁宇, 周新社, 赵志, 裴立家, 刘犇. 侧位直接前方入路髋关节置换治疗偏瘫肢体股骨颈骨折[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 865-870.
[3] 夏传龙, 迟健, 丛强, 连杰, 崔峻, 陈彦玲. 富血小板血浆联合关节镜治疗半月板损伤的临床疗效[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 877-881.
[4] 王波, 许珂, 刘林, 张斌飞, 庄岩, 许鹏. 全髋关节置换术在老年髋臼骨折中的应用[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 385-390.
[5] 王博永, 张飞洋, 沈灏. 全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 391-397.
[6] 皮颖, 王高, 张强, 黄志荣. 年轻患者初次髋关节置换术后关节翻修的原因分析[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 430-434.
[7] 陈丽冰, 欧会芝, 陆映霞. 基于配偶支持的个案管理在全髋关节置换患者中的应用[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 292-296.
[8] 陆闻青, 陈昕怡, 任雪飞. 遗传代谢病儿童肝移植受者术后生活质量调查研究[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 287-292.
[9] 李梅, 孔珊珊. Robocare护理模式联合高频胸壁振荡在腹腔镜腹壁切口疝修补术的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 619-624.
[10] 王静, 庞冬, 高赫, 刘金. 护理能力与应对方式在造口患者造口影响与生活质量间的中介效应[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 468-472.
[11] 彭国兵, 费建平. 影响患者永久性结肠造口的状况及因素[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 264-268.
[12] 邓美云, 马兰, 胡惠惠. 双环节协同护理模式在老年腹股沟疝患者中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 346-349.
[13] 陈显金, 吴芹芹, 何长春, 张庆华. 利用多模态医学数据和机器学习构建脑出血预后预测模型的研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(04): 193-198.
[14] 孙晗, 武侠. 成人肠易激综合征患者肠道菌群特征与不同分型患者生活质量和精神症状的相关性[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 461-465.
[15] 王小娜, 谭微, 李悦, 姜文艳. 预测性护理对结直肠癌根治术患者围手术期生活质量、情绪及并发症的影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 525-529.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号