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) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (05) : 562 -571. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2021.05.007

荟萃分析

两种髋关节置换术后髋骨关节炎患者长期生存质量差异
朱瑞逸1, 李好好1, 昌敬惠2,()   
  1. 1. 510515 广州,南方医科大学第二临床医学院
    2. 510515 广州,南方医科大学卫生管理学院
  • 收稿日期:2020-10-15 出版日期:2021-10-01
  • 通信作者: 昌敬惠
  • 基金资助:
    2019年度广东省医学科学技术研究基金(B2019248); 2018年度南方医科大学科研启动计划青年科技人员培育项目(G618369181); 2019年度南方医科大学卫生管理学院国家级课题培育计划项目(2019RFT002); 2020年度南方医科大学大学生创新训练计划项目(X202012121248)

Difference of long-term quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis after two types of hip replacement

Ruiyi Zhu1, Haohao Li1, Jinghui Chang2,()   

  1. 1. Second Medical College, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China
    2. Health Management College, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China
  • Received:2020-10-15 Published:2021-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Jinghui Chang
引用本文:

朱瑞逸, 李好好, 昌敬惠. 两种髋关节置换术后髋骨关节炎患者长期生存质量差异[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(05): 562-571.

Ruiyi Zhu, Haohao Li, Jinghui Chang. Difference of long-term quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis after two types of hip replacement[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(05): 562-571.

目的

系统评价全髋关节置换术(THA)及表面髋关节置换术(HRA)治疗髋骨关节炎患者术后长期生活质量差异、翻修率及并发症发生率,为临床应用提供意见。

方法

计算机检索PubMed、中国知网、万方数据库,纳入数据库中所有关于表面髋关节置换术和全髋关节置换治疗髋骨关节炎的临床对照研究,检索年限为2000年1月至2020年5月。筛选研究对象为患髋骨关节炎且需行THA或HRA的患者,结局指标涉及术后长期生活质量差异、翻修率及并发症发生率,由两位研究员按照纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价质量后,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。

结果

纳入文献8篇,共纳入患者965例,其中表面髋关节置换组(HRA)522例,全髋关节置换组(THA)443例;Meta分析结果显示HRA组与THA组病人在术后长期疗效的Harris评分[加权均数差(WMD)=1.60,95%置信区间(CI)(0.26,2.94),P=0.02]、髋关节加州大学洛杉矶分校评分[WMD=0.66,95%CI(0.38,0.95),P<0.001]、牛津大学髋关节评分[WMD=2.88,95%CI(0.36,5.40),P=0.03]和术后并发症发生率[RR=0.37,95%CI(0.21,0.65),P=0.0004]差异有统计学意义,HRA组高于THA组;两组在长期翻修率差异无统计学意义[RR=0.64,95%CI(0.36,1.16),P=0.14]。

结论

接受表面髋关节置换术患者在长期生活质量改善上优于接受全髋关节置换术的患者,且翻修率无明显差别,此结论仍需要进一步纳入大量大样本、多中心、高质量的随机对照试验加以论证。

Objective

To systematically evaluate the difference in quality of life and revision rate of patients undergoing total hip replacement and surface hip replacement for osteoarthritis.

Methods

By searching PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) and Wanfang databases, all the clinical controlled studies on superficial hip replacement and total hip replacement for osteoarthritis were included, and the search period was from January 2000 to May 2020. The researches included were those with patients needing THA or HRA for hip osteoarthritis and with outcome measures containing long-term quality-of-life scores, revision rates and complication rates. The two researchers independently screened the literatures, extracted data and evaluated the quality according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then used RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 965 patients were included in eight articles, including 522 patients in the hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) group and 443 patients in the total hip replacement (THA) group. Meta-analysis results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the HRA group and the THA group in the Harris score[weighed mean difference(WMD)=1.60, 95%confidence interval(CI)(0.26, 2.94), P=0.02]、University of California Los Angeles activity-level rating score (UCLA activity score) [MD=0.66, 95%CI(0.38, 0.95), P<0.001]、Oxford hip score [MD=2.88, 95%CI(0.36, 5.40), P=0.03] and postoperative complication rate[RR=0.37, 95%CI(0.21, 0.65), P=0.0004] at long-term function after surgery, and the HRA group was higher than the THA group. There was no significant difference in revision rate and postoperative complication rate between the two groups[RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.36, 1.16), P=0.14].

Conclusions

The patients undergoing hip resurfacing arthroplasty have better long-term quality of life improvement than patients undergoing total hip replacement, and there is no significant difference in revision rate. This conclusion needs to be demonstrated by further including a large sample, multi-center, high-quality randomized controlled trial to demonstrate.

表1 文献基本信息表
图1 文献检索流程图
表2 纳入随机对照试验的偏倚风险评估
表3 纳入队列研究的偏倚风险评估
图2 纳入研究髋关节UCLA(加州大学洛杉矶分校)评分的发表偏倚漏斗图
图3 HRA(表面髋关节置换术)与THA(全髋关节置换术)Harris评分比较
图4 HRA(表面髋关节置换术)与THA(全髋关节置换术)研究髋关节UCLA (加州大学洛杉矶分校)评分比较
图5 HRA(表面髋关节置换术)与THA(全髋关节置换术)OHS评分(牛津大学髋关节评分)比较
图6 HRA(表面髋关节置换术)与THA(全髋关节置换术)翻修率比较
图7 HRA(表面髋关节置换术)与THA(全髋关节置换术)并发症发生率
图8 HRA(表面髋关节置换术)与THA(全髋关节置换术)并发症森林图
图9 术前关节功能森林图
[1]
O′Brien MS, McDougall JJ. Age and frailty as risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis[J]. Mech Ageing Dev, 2019180: 21-28.
[2]
Papalia R, Campi S, Vorini F, et al. The role of physical activity and rehabilitation following hip and knee arthroplasty in the elderly[J/OL]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(5): 1401. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051401.
[3]
Laaksonen I, Donahue GS, Madanat R, et al. Outcomes of the recalled articular surface replacement metal-on-metal hip implant system: a systematic review[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2017, 32(1): 341-346.
[4]
张紫豪,沈彬,杨静,等.全髋置换术与全髋表面置换术治疗骨关节炎的Meta分析[J].中国循证医学杂志201313(8):978-984.
[5]
Scholes CJ, Ebrahimi M, Farah SB, et al. The outcome and survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients aged less than 50 years: a prospective observational cohort study with minimum ten-year follow-up[J]. Bone Joint J, 2019, 101-B(1): 113-120.
[6]
Halawi MJ, Brigati D, Messner W, et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients 55 years or younger: risk factors for poor midterm outcomes[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2017, 32(6): 1880-1883.
[7]
Begun A, Macgregor AJ, Pchejetski D, et al. Dynamic early identification of hip replacement implants with high revision rates. Study based on the NJR data from UK during 2004-2012[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2020, 15(8): e0236701. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236701.
[8]
López-López JA, Humphriss RL, Beswick AD, et al. Choice of implant combinations in total hip replacement: systematic review and network meta-analysis[J/OL]. BMJ, 2017, 359: j4651. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4651.
[9]
范智荣,黄永铨,彭嘉杰,等.伯明翰髋关节表面置换对比全髋关节置换的效果及金属离子水平:系统评价与Meta分析[J].中国组织工程研究202024(3):428-437.
[10]
Smith TO, Nichols R, Donell ST, et al. The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review[J]. Acta Orthop, 2010, 81(6): 684-695.
[11]
Pailhé R, Reina N, Cavaignac E, et al. Prospective study comparing functional outcomes and revision rates between hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: preliminary results for 2 years[J/OL]. Orthop Rev (Pavia), 2013, 5(3): e20. doi: 10.4081/or.2013.e20.
[12]
张丕军,洪顾麒,王钢.髋关节表面置换与全髋关节置换疗效的Meta分析[J].中国组织工程研究201317(26):4872-4879.
[13]
耿齐梓.表面髋关节置换与全髋关节置换治疗骨关节炎的系统评价[D].南宁:广西医科大学,2017.
[14]
Hellman MD, Ford MC, Barrack RL. Is there evidence to support an indication for surface replacement arthroplasty?A systematic review[J]. Bone Joint J, 2019, 101-B(1 Supple A): 32-40.
[15]
Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris hip score(HHS), hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score(HOOS), Oxford hip score(OHS), Lequesne index of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip(LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons(AAOS) hip and knee questionnaire[J]. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2011, 63(S11): S200-S207.
[16]
Bisseling P, Smolders JM, Hol A, et al. Metal ion levels and functional results following resurfacing hip arthroplasty versus conventional small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty; a 3 to 5 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(1): 61-67.
[17]
Haddad FS, Konan S, Tahmassebi J. A prospective comparative study of cementless total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing in patients under the age of 55 years: a ten-year follow-up[J]. Bone Joint J, 2015, 97-B(5): 617-622.
[18]
Rueckl K, Liebich A, Bechler U, et al. Return to sports after hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a mid-term case control study[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2020, 140(7): 957-962.
[19]
Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, et al. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients[J]. J Arthroplasty, 1998, 13(8): 890-895.
[20]
Jonas SC, Whitehouse MR, Bick S, et al. An 18-year comparison of hybrid total hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients[J]. Hip Int, 2019, 29(6): 630-637.
[21]
Killampalli VV, Kundra RK, Chaudhry F, et al. Resurfacing and uncemented arthroplasty for young hip arthritis: functional outcomes at 5 years[J]. Hip Int, 2009, 19(3): 234-238.
[22]
Vendittoli PA, Rivière C, Roy AG, et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with 28-mm diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a randomised study with six to nine years′ follow-up[J]. Bone Joint J, 2013, 95-B(11): 1464-1473.
[23]
Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2007, 89(8): 1010-1014.
[24]
Fink BL, Johnson SH, Patrick DJ, et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip arthroplasty: two to five year outcomes in men younger than sixty five years[J]. Int Orthop, 2014, 38(12): 2435-2440.
[25]
Gerhardt DM, Smolders JM, Rijnders TA, et al. Changes in bone mineral density and femoral neck narrowing in the proximal femur three to five years after hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(2): 308-314.
[26]
Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, et al. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an Independent series[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2012, 94(9): 1180-1186.
[27]
Dowding C, Dobransky JS, Kim PR, et al. Metal on metal hip resurfacing in patients 45 years of age and younger at minimum 5-year follow-up[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2018, 33(10): 3196-3200.
[28]
Halawi MJ, Oak SR, Brigati D, et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing versus cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients 55 years or younger: a minimum five-year follow-up[J]. J Clin Orthop Trauma, 2018, 9(4): 285-288.
[29]
Ford MC, Hellman MD, Kazarian GS, et al. Five to ten-year results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing implant in the U.S: a single institution′s experience[J]. J Bone Joint Surg, 2018, 100(21): 1879-1887.
[30]
Prosser GH, Yates PJ, Wood DJ, et al. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision[J]. Acta Orthop, 2010, 81(1): 66-71.
[31]
Renner L, Faschingbauer M, Schmidt-Braekling T, et al. Cobalt serum levels differ in well functioning Birmingham resurfacing and Birmingham modular THA[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2016, 136(5): 715-721.
[32]
Mäkelä KT, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, et al. Results of 3,668 primary total hip replacements for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years[J]. Acta Orthop, 2011, 82(5): 521-529.
[33]
Johanson P, Fenstad AM, Furnes O, et al. Inferior outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty than after conventional arthroplasty. Evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, 1995 to 2007[J]. Acta Orthop, 2010, 81(5): 535-541.
[34]
Tang-Jensen M, Kjærsgaard-Andersen P, Poulsen TK, et al. Survival and revision causes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and the Mitch proximal epiphyseal replacement: results from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register[J]. Acta Orthop, 2019, 90(6): 523-529.
[35]
Corten K, Macdonald SJ. Hip resurfacing data from National joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010, 468(2): 351-357.
[36]
Girard J, Lons A, Ramdane N, et al. Hip resurfacing before 50 years of age: a prospective study of 979 hips with a mean follow-up of 5.1 years[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2018, 104(3): 295-299.
[37]
Ball ST, Le DM, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007, 89(4): 735-741.
[38]
Nunley RM, Zhu J, Brooks PJ, et al. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010, 468(2): 382-391.
[39]
Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, et al. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2006, 14(8): 454-463.
[40]
Brooks PJ, Samuel LT, Levin JM, et al. Mortality after hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty in young patients: a single surgeon experience[J/OL]. Ann Transl Med, 2019, 7(4): 77. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.01.39.
[1] 周钰菡, 肖欢, 唐毅, 杨春江, 周娟, 朱丽容, 徐娟, 牟芳婷. 超声对儿童髋关节暂时性滑膜炎的诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 795-800.
[2] 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.
[3] 张思平, 刘伟, 马鹏程. 全膝关节置换术后下肢轻度内翻对线对疗效的影响[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 808-817.
[4] 罗旺林, 杨传军, 许国星, 俞建国, 孙伟东, 颜文娟, 冯志. 开放性楔形胫骨高位截骨术不同植入材料的Meta分析[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 818-826.
[5] 闫文, 谢兴文, 顾玉彪, 雷宁波, 马成, 于文霞, 高亚雄, 张磊. 微小RNA与全膝关节置换术后深静脉血栓的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 842-846.
[6] 樊绪国, 赵永刚, 杨砚伟. 腓骨在膝骨关节炎作用的研究观点[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 855-859.
[7] 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.
[8] 李善武, 叶永杰, 王兵, 王子呓, 银毅, 孙官军, 张大刚. 胫骨高位截骨与单髁置换的早期疗效比较[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 882-888.
[9] 刘伦, 王云鹭, 李锡勇, 韩鹏飞, 张鹏, 李晓东. 机器人辅助膝关节单髁置换术的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 715-721.
[10] 浦路桥, 徐永清, 齐保闯, 施洪鑫, 林玮, 卜鹏飞, 白艳, 唐志方, 李川. 中国髋部脆性骨折术后抗骨质疏松药物临床干预指南(2023年版)计划书[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 747-750.
[11] 李雄雄, 周灿, 徐婷, 任予, 尚进. 初诊导管原位癌伴微浸润腋窝淋巴结转移率的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 466-474.
[12] 张再博, 王冰雨, 焦志凯, 檀碧波. 胃癌术后下肢深静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[13] 莫闲, 杨闯. 肝硬化患者并发门静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 678-683.
[14] 段文忠, 白延霞, 徐文亭, 祁虹霞, 吕志坚. 七氟烷和丙泊酚在肝切除术中麻醉效果比较Meta分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 640-645.
[15] 王旭, 师绍敏, 毛燕, 季上, 刘亚玲. 肝酶代谢与骨关节炎相关性的研究进展[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 379-384.
阅读次数
全文


摘要