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) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (02) : 261 -266. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2023.02.016

综述

全髋关节置换术中假体位置安全区的研究进展
王启中, 李辉()   
  1. 712046 咸阳,陕西中医药大学第一临床医学院;710054 西安交通大学附属红会医院
    710054 西安交通大学附属红会医院
  • 收稿日期:2022-05-10 出版日期:2023-04-01
  • 通信作者: 李辉
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81601913)

Research progress in safe zone of prosthesis position of total hip arthroplasty

Qizhong Wang, Hui Li()   

  1. The First Clinical Medical College of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang 712046, China; Honghui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong Uiversity, Xi’an 710054, China
    Honghui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong Uiversity, Xi’an 710054, China
  • Received:2022-05-10 Published:2023-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Hui Li
引用本文:

王启中, 李辉. 全髋关节置换术中假体位置安全区的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 261-266.

Qizhong Wang, Hui Li. Research progress in safe zone of prosthesis position of total hip arthroplasty[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(02): 261-266.

脱位是全髋关节置换术后最常见的并发症之一,合适的髋臼、股骨假体角度和位置是降低脱位风险的关键。过去40多年里被视为金标准的Lewinnek安全区,因其仅关注静态的髋臼位置,忽略了股骨和骨盆运动对髋关节稳定性的影响,近来受到了越来越多的挑战。随着对股骨前倾角重要性的认识加深,联合前倾角的理念也逐渐流行。越来越多地聚焦于脊柱-骨盆-髋关节运动学和联动关系的研究催生了功能安全区。但上述安全区未能考虑患者解剖形态和运动学上的个体差异,所以整合患者个体解剖特征和脊柱-骨盆复合体运动学的个性化安全区备受期待。本文对全髋关节置换术中假体位置安全区的发展沿革与研究进展进行回顾与综述,以期为临床相关研究提供参考。

Dislocation is one of the most common complications of total hip arthroplasty. An appropriate positioning of acetabular and femoral prosthesis is paramount to reduce the risk of dislocation. Lewinnek safe zone, which has been regarded as the standard of prosthesis positioning over the last 40 years, has been challenged recently because it merely emphasises the static acetabular position and ignores the effect of femoral and pelvic motion on hip stability. As the understanding of the essential of femoral anteversion deepens, the concept of combined anteversion has begun to prevail. Increasing researches are focusing on the kinematics and interrelationship of spine-pelvis-hip conceptualised the functional safe zone. Safe zones described above fail to take into account the differences in morphology and kinematics of individual patients, therefore, the patient-specific safe zone based on anatomy of individual patient and kinematics of spine-pelvic complex is much anticipated. In this review, the history and progress of various safe zones of total hip arthroplasty were summarised.

[1]
Gwam CU, Mistry JB, Mohamed NS, et al. Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national inpatient sample 2009 to 2013[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2017, 32(7): 2088-2092.
[2]
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010, 468(1): 45-51.
[3]
Khatod M, Barber T, Paxton E, et al. An analysis of the risk of hip dislocation with a contemporary total joint registry[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2006, 447: 19-23.
[4]
Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, et al. The cumulative long-term risk of dislocation after primary Charnley total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004, 86(1): 9-14.
[5]
Morrey BF. Difficult complications after hip joint replacement. Dislocation[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1997(344): 179-187.
[6]
唐锡国,杨武,唐锡辉,等. 前侧及后外侧入路髋臼假体安放位置的比较[J/CD]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(6): 755-759.
[7]
Kostensalo I, Junnila M, Virolainen P, et al. Effect of femoral head size on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based analysis of 42, 379 primary procedures from the finnish arthroplasty register[J]. Acta Orthop, 2013, 84(4): 342-347.
[8]
Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, et al. The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis. An analysis of 78, 098 operations in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register[J]. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(5): 442-448.
[9]
Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007, 89(8): 1832-1842.
[10]
马卫华,吴富源,曲广运,等. 不同髋臼杯前倾位置和球头假体大小对全髋关节置换术后后方稳定性的影响[J/CD]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2009, 3(5): 624-629.
[11]
Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, et al. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1978, 60(2): 217-220.
[12]
Reina N, Putman S, Desmarchelier R, et al. Can a target zone safer than Lewinnek’s safe zone be defined to prevent instability of total hip arthroplasties? Case-control study of 56 dislocated THA and 93 matched controls[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2017, 103(5): 657-661.
[13]
Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, et al. The john charnley award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011, 469(2): 319-329.
[14]
Murphy WS, Yun HH, Hayden B, et al. The safe zone range for cup anteversion is narrower than for inclination in THA[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2018, 476(2): 325-335.
[15]
Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, et al. What safe zone? the vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2016, 474(2): 386-391.
[16]
Timperley AJ, Biau D, Chew D, et al. Dislocation after total hip replacement - there is no such thing as a safe zone for socket placement with the posterior approach[J]. Hip Int, 2016, 26(2): 121-127.
[17]
Lazennec JY, Thauront F, Robbins CB, et al. Acetabular and femoral anteversions in standing position are outside the proposed safe zone after total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2017, 32(11): 3550-3556.
[18]
Heckmann N, Tezuka T, Bodner RJ, et al. Functional anatomy of the hip joint[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2021, 36(1): 374-378.
[19]
Kanawade V, Dorr LD, Wan Z. Predictability of acetabular component angular change with postural shift from standing to sitting position[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2014, 96(12): 978-986.
[20]
Pour AE, Schwarzkopf R, Patel KP, et al. Is combined anteversion equally affected by acetabular cup and femoral stem anteversion?[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2021, 36(7): 2393-2401.
[21]
Elkins JM, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. The 2014 Frank Stinchfield Award: the 'landing zone’ for wear and stability in total hip arthroplasty is smaller than we thought: a computational analysis[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2015, 473(2): 441-452.
[22]
Widmer KH, Zurfluh B. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion[J]. J Orthop Res, 2004, 22(4): 815-821.
[23]
Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, et al. Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2009, 467(1): 119-127.
[24]
McKibbin B. Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1970, 52(1): 148-159.
[25]
Maruyama M, Feinberg JR, Capello WN, et al. The Frank Stinchfield Award: Morphologic features of the acetabulum and femur: anteversion angle and implant positioning[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2001(393): 52-65.
[26]
Nakashima Y, Hirata M, Akiyama M, et al. Combined anteversion technique reduced the dislocation in cementless total hip arthroplasty[J]. Int Orthop, 2014, 38(1): 27-32.
[27]
Yoshimine F. The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversions that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements[J]. J Biomech, 2006, 39(7): 1315-1323.
[28]
Ranawac CS, Maynard MJ. Modern technique of cemented total hip arthroplasty[J]. Tech Orthop, 1991, 6(3): 17-25.
[29]
Hernández A, Lakhani K, NúñezJH, et al. Can we trust combined anteversion and Lewinnek safe zone to avoid hip prosthesis dislocation?[J/OL]. J Clin Orthop Trauma, 2021, 21: 101562. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101562.
[30]
Tezuka T, Heckmann ND, Bodner RJ, et al. Functional safe zone is superior to the lewinnek safe zone for total hip arthroplasty: why the lewinnek safe zone is not always predictive of stability[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2019, 34(1): 3-8.
[31]
Esposito CI, Gladnick BP, Lee YY, et al. Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(1): 109-113.
[32]
Lazennec JY, Riwan A, Gravez F, et al. Hip spine relationships: application to total hip arthroplasty[J]. Hip Int, 2007, 17(Suppl 5): S91-S104.
[33]
Heckmann N, McKnight B, Stefl M, et al. Late dislocation following total hip arthroplasty: spinopelvic imbalance as a causative factor[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2018, 100(21): 1845-1853.
[34]
Luthringer TA, Vigdorchik JM. A preoperative workup of a "hip-spine" total hip arthroplasty patient: asimplified approach to a complex problem[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2019, 34(7): S57-S70.
[35]
Windsor EN, Sharma AK, Premkumar A, et al. The use of technology to achieve the functional acetabular safe zone in total hip arthroplasty[J/OL]. JBJS Rev, 2022, 10(2). DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.21.00070.
[36]
Lum ZC, Coury JG, Cohen JL, et al. The Current knowledge on spinopelvic mobility[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2018, 33(1): 291-296.
[37]
Stefl M, Lundergan W, Heckmann N, et al. Spinopelvic mobility and acetabular component position for total hip arthroplasty[J]. Bone Joint J, 2017, 99-B(1 Supple A): 37-45.
[38]
Lazennec JY, Brusson A, Rousseau MA. Lumbar-pelvic-femoral balance on sitting and standing lateral radiographs[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2013, 99(1): S87-S103.
[39]
Maratt JD, Esposito CI, McLawhorn AS, et al. Pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: when does it matter?[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2015, 30(3): 387-391.
[40]
Kim Y, Vergari C, Girinon F, et al. Stand-to-sit kinematics of the pelvis is not always as expected: hip and spine pathologies can have an impact[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2019, 34(9): 2118-2123.
[41]
Gausden EB, Parhar HS, Popper JE, et al. Risk factors for early dislocation following primary elective total hip arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2018, 33(5): 1567-1571.e2.
[42]
Phan D, Bederman SS, Schwarzkopf R. The influence of sagittal spinal deformity on anteversion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty[J]. Bone Joint J, 2015, 97-B(8): 1017-1023.
[43]
Sharma AK, Vigdorchik JM. The hip-spine relationship in total hip arthroplasty: how to execute the plan[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2021, 36(7): S111-S120.
[44]
Rivière C, Harman C, Parsons T, et al. Kinematic alignment versus conventional techniques for total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective case control study[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2019, 105(5): 895-905.
[45]
Pierrepont J, Hawdon G, Miles BP, et al. Variation in functional pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty[J]. Bone Joint J, 2017, 99-B(2): 184-191.
[46]
Snijders TE, Schlösser TPC, van Straalen M, et al. Erratum to: the effect of postural pelvic dynamics on the three-dimensional orientation of the acetabular cup in THA is patient specific[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2021, 479(8): 1878-1879.
[47]
Habor J, Fischer MCM, Tokunaga K, et al. The patient-specific combined target zone for Morpho-functional planning of total hip arthroplasty[J/OL]. J Pers Med, 2021, 11(8): 817. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080817.
[48]
Widmer KH. The impingement-free, prosthesis-specific, and anatomy-adjusted combined target zone for component positioning in THA depends on design and implantation parameters of both components[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2020, 478(8): 1904-1918.
[49]
Tang H, Li Y, Zhou Y, et al. A modeling study of a patient-specific safe zone for THA: calculation, validation, and key factors based on standing and sitting sagittal pelvic tilt[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2022, 480(1): 191-205.
[50]
Hsu J, de la Fuente M, Radermacher K. Calculation of impingement-free combined cup and stem alignments based on the patient-specific pelvic tilt[J]. J Biomech, 2019, 82: 193-203.
[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] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 吴聪, 刘伦, 贾全忠. 老年股骨颈骨折初次全髋关节置换近期疗效影响因素[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 283-287.
[7] 彭胜男, 李志伟, 徐静, 彭晓星, 蒋微. 髂筋膜阻滞复合全身麻醉在全髋关节置换术中的应用[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 195-200.
[8] 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.
[9] 唐林, 吴颖斌, 潘恩豪, 卢伟杰. 发育性髋关节发育不良全髋置换髋臼假体放置的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 65-70.
[10] 刘凯, 李萌, 姬文晨, 杨卫周, 刘俭涛. 全髋关节置换联合自体松质骨移植治疗老年股骨颈骨折[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 786-789.
[11] 肖美慧, 屈婧, 席明霞, 蒋小剑, 汤慧, 彭康琳, 陈明艳, 向婷婷, 李超, 李奥. Otage运动在老年全髋关节置换术后功能锻炼的应用[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 639-642.
[12] 张雨, 傅凯, 姚尧, 刘昊, 庄再凯, 蒋涛, 沈颖, 蒋青, 陈东阳. 机器人辅助与传统直接前入路微创全髋关节置换的比较[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 535-541.
[13] 郭浩鹏, 谢超, 李奇. 第三代双动杯全髋关节置换的临床应用进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(04): 467-471.
[14] 孙强, 郭晓忠, 王冉东, 李兵, 岳聚安, 刘忘言, 陈蛟. 双粗通道减压植骨+结构性骨支撑治疗早期股骨头坏死疗效分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2022, 17(06): 490-495.
[15] 李伟, 张德宝, 徐声鸣, 毕煌毅, 谷贵山. 人工全髋关节置换术后假体周围骨折的若干问题[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2022, 08(03): 182-187.
阅读次数
全文


摘要