To evaluate the short term efficacy of 160 biological revision handle in femoral revision.

The patients who underwent the femoral revision of Chunli 160? handle in Guangdong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from August 2017 to September 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical and imaging manifestations before and at the last follow-up were evaluated and compared with the patients who underwent the revision of Johnson’s Solution? handle at the same time. The efficacy score of artificial hip joint (Harris score) and the hip score of Oxford University were evaluated before and at the last follow-up (OHS score). The paired sample t test was used, and independent sample t test was used for inter-group comparison.

A total of 35 patients who met the criteria were enrolled with completed follow-up, including 18 patients in the Chunli 160? handle group (the observation group) and 17 patients in the Solution? handle group (the control group). The Harris score of the observation group increased from preoperative (34±8) to postoperative (72±7) (t =-13.91, P<0.001), the control group increased from preoperative (30±6) to postoperative (68±11) (t =-10.98, P<0.001). The OHS score of the observation group decreased from preoperative (30±8) to postoperative (16±9) (t =9.40, P <0.001). The OHS score of the control group decreased from preoperative (34±2) to postoperative (16±2) (t =16.05, P<0.001) There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative Harris score and OHS score between the two groups (t =-1.41, 0.19, both P>0.05). Imaging showed that the prosthesis was firmly fixed, and there was no significant difference in prosthesis sinking distance and prosthesis loosening rating between the two groups (Z =-0.857, -0.474, both P>0.05) .

The 160? biological revision handle performs well in the short-term follow-up of hip revision patients. The short-term curative effect is equivalent to that of solution handle, and the long-term curative effect needs to be further observed.