切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华关节外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (06) : 761 -764. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2020.06.020

所属专题: 文献

临床经验

索绑系统治疗不同类型股骨假体周围骨折
王广东1, 黎立1,(), 闫涛1, 李靖扬1, 乔为民1   
  1. 1. 830002 乌鲁木齐,新疆维吾尔自治区中医医院
  • 收稿日期:2020-09-16 出版日期:2020-12-01
  • 通信作者: 黎立

Application of Cable-Ready system in treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures of different prostheses

Guangdong Wang1, Li Li1,(), Tao Yan1, Jingyang Li1, Weimin Qiao1   

  1. 1. Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Urumqi 830002, China
  • Received:2020-09-16 Published:2020-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Li Li
引用本文:

王广东, 黎立, 闫涛, 李靖扬, 乔为民. 索绑系统治疗不同类型股骨假体周围骨折[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(06): 761-764.

Guangdong Wang, Li Li, Tao Yan, Jingyang Li, Weimin Qiao. Application of Cable-Ready system in treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures of different prostheses[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(06): 761-764.

目的

分析Cable-Ready索绑系统应用于不同类型股骨假体的全髋关节置换术(THA)后的股骨假体周围骨折临床效果。

方法

回顾性分析2010年在新疆维吾尔自治区中医医院行手术治疗的THA术后股骨假体周围骨折的79例患者,根据初次THA所使用的股骨假体类型,分为生物型假体组(47例)、骨水泥假体组(32例)。t检验或秩和检验、卡方检验比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、骨折临床愈合时间,髋关节功能评分量表Harris评分及并发症。

结果

两组患者的性别(χ2=0.855)、年龄(t=-1.132)、股骨假体周围骨折的温哥华分型(χ2=0.349)、住院时间(t=-0.872)、骨折愈合时间(t=-1.336)等比较,差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05);生物型假体组的手术时间(t=-5.860)、术中出血量(t=-50.128)比骨水泥假体组少(P<0.05)。两组患者发生股骨假体周围骨折前的髋关节Harris疼痛评分(t=-1.897)、功能评分(t=1.757)比较差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05)。术后1年评估Harris评分,疼痛情况(Z=-1.157)、功能情况(Z=-0.540)与受伤前比较,评分变化的差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05),两组患者术后1年的Harris畸形评分(t=-0.858)、关节活动度评分(t=-1.231)差异无统计学意义(均为P>0.05)。随访期间生物型假体组出现共计7例并发症;骨水泥型假体组出现共计6例并发症,两组的并发症情况差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.206,P>0.05)。

结论

Cable-Ready索绑系统应用于生物型假体和骨水泥型假体的股骨假体周围骨折的住院时间、骨折愈合时间、髋关节功能恢复情况基本一致,但应用生物型假体的患者可节约手术时间、减少出血量。

Objective

To analyze the clinical outcomes of periprosthetic femoral fracture after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the application of Cable Ready system to different types of femoral prostheses.

Methods

A total of 79 patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures following THA who were treated surgically with Cable-Ready system in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from 2010 to 2019, were retrospectively divided into the biotype prosthesis group (47 patients) and the cemented prosthesis group(32 patients) according to the prosthesis type in primary THA. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, clinical healing of fractures, Harris score, and complications were compared between the two groups using t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or Chi-square test.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in gender (χ2= 0.855), age (t=-1.132), Vancouver classification (χ2=0.349), length of hospital stay (t=-0.872), or time to fracture healing (t=-1.336) between the two groups (all P>0.05). The duration of surgery (t=-5.860) and intraoperative blood loss (t=-50.128) were less in the biotype prosthesis group than those in the cemented prosthesis group (both P<0.05). The Harris pain scores (t=-1.897) and functional scores (t=1.757) before periprosthetic femoral fracture were compared between the two groups and there was no statistically significant difference (all P>0.05). One year after the operation, the changes of pain (Z=-1.157) and function condition (Z=-0.540) were compared between the two groups, and the differences were not statistically significant (both P>0.05), while the Harris deformity score (t=-0.858) and joint mobility score (t=-1.231) were basically consistent between the two groups at one year after the operation (both P>0.05). A total of seven complications occurred in the group with biotype prostheses during follow-up and six in the group with cemented prostheses, and the occurrence of complications in the two groups was almost the same (χ2=0.206, P>0.05).

Conclusion

When femoral periprosthetic fractures treated by Cable Ready system, the length of hospital stay, fracture healing time, and recovery of hip function are generally consistent in both the biotype and cemented prostheses, but the patients of biotype prosthesis for primary THA have shorter operation time and less blood loss.

表1 股骨假体骨折患者的一般情况、骨折分型及手术相关情况
表2 股骨假体骨折患者手术治疗前后髋关节Harris评分比较
[1]
许福生,刘方刚,祁伟. 髋关节置换术后股骨假体周围骨折的诊疗进展[J/CD]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版),2015,9(4):536-540.
[2]
都斌,王勇,蒋建农,等. 生物型全涂层股骨长柄假体治疗Vancouver B2型股骨假体周围骨折[J]. 中华创伤杂志,2015,31(8):709-713.
[3]
Buttaro MA, Costantini J, Comba F, et al. The use of femoral struts and impacted cancellous bone allograft in patients with severe femoral bone loss who undergo revision total hip replacement: a three- to nine-year follow-up[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2012, 94(2): 167-172.
[4]
Duncan CP, Masri BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement[J]. Instr Course Lect,1995,44(1):293-304.
[5]
Brady OH, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, et al. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2000, 15(1): 59-62.
[6]
Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS. European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br,2008,90(12):1576-1579.
[7]
Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1969, 51(4):737-755.
[8]
Abdel MP, Watts CD, Houdek MT, et al. Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience[J]. Bone Joint J, 2016, 98-B(4): 461-467.
[9]
Lindberg-Larsen M, Jorgensen CC, Solgaard S, et al. Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with uncemented stems[J]. Acta Orthop,2017,88(4):390-394.
[10]
高升焘,万连平,张鹏,等. 全髋关节置换术中骨盆旋转对髋臼假体角度的影响[J/CD]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版),2017,11(1):68-72.
[11]
卢士学,李俊,刘飞,等. 人工全髋关节置换髋臼假体稳定性的实验研究[J/CD]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版),2020,14(4):447-453.
[12]
赵秉诚,覃文报. 全髋关节置换术中髋臼假体准确定位的研究进展[J/CD]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版),2019,13(6):736-739.
[13]
许广达,郭荣光,金舒. 髋关节置换术股骨假体周围骨折的手术治疗[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2016,31(10):1068-1069.
[1] 高秋芳, 张万锋, 盛泉音, 马彬. 足底内侧皮瓣联合腓动脉穿支皮瓣修复足跟部巨大恶性黑色素瘤切除后创面的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 491-497.
[2] 齐伟亚, 方杰, 左志诚, 刘桂谦, 裴广楠, 刘波. 内窥镜辅助下改良Okutsu 法治疗腕管综合征的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 503-506.
[3] 王振宁, 杨康, 王得晨, 邹敏, 归明彬, 王雅楠, 徐明. 机器人与腹腔镜手术联合经自然腔道取标本对中低位直肠癌患者远期疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 437-442.
[4] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[5] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[6] 杨建波, 马欢, 黄小梅, 刘华柱. 结肠镜辅助下EMR、CSP和RFA术治疗直径<1cm结直肠息肉的疗效和安全性比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 76-79.
[7] 冯旺, 马振中, 汤林花. CT扫描三维重建在肝内胆管细胞癌腹腔镜肝切除术中的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 104-107.
[8] 顾雯, 凌守鑫, 唐海利, 甘雪梅. 两种不同手术入路在甲状腺乳头状癌患者开放性根治性术中的应用比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 687-690.
[9] 江志鹏, 钟克力, 陈双. 复杂腹壁疝手术后腹腔高压与腹腔间室综合征的预防和处理[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 612-615.
[10] 朱佳琳, 方向, 贵诗雨, 黄丹, 周小雨, 郭文恺. 大鼠切口疝腹膜前间隙补片修补术后血清中VEGF 和Ang-1 的表达情况[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 703-707.
[11] 陆镜明, 韩大为, 任耀星, 黄天笑, 向俊西, 张谞丰, 吕毅, 王傅民. 基于术前影像组学的肝内胆管细胞癌淋巴结转移预测的系统性分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 852-858.
[12] 刘琦, 王守凯, 王帅, 苏雨晴, 马壮, 陈海军, 司丕蕾. 乳腺癌肿瘤内微生物组的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 841-845.
[13] 于洁, 金小红, 顾艳楣, 王慧, 葛杨杨, 李燕. 癌症相关静脉血栓栓塞症患者疾病体验与需求的质性研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 739-744.
[14] 喻蓉, 周伟力, 雷青, 陈松, 陈立, 刘峰, 丁州, 阳宏奇, 王康, 王大鹏. 改良的内外侧环抱锁定钢板在复杂胫骨平台骨折治疗中的临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 764-770.
[15] 颜世锐, 熊辉. 感染性心内膜炎合并急性肾损伤患者的危险因素探索及死亡风险预测[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 618-624.
阅读次数
全文


摘要