中国组织工程研究

中国组织工程研究 ›› 2012, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (22): 4031-4034.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2012.22.010

• 人工假体 artificial prosthesis • 上一篇    下一篇

螺旋型髋臼与压配型髋臼的临床应用分析

张  媺，白鹏程，江建平，王  辉，冯孝志，金绍林，童绪军，张昌奕，李  勇   

  1. 铜陵有色职工总医院骨科，安徽省铜陵市  244000
  • 收稿日期:2012-01-19 修回日期:2012-02-23 出版日期:2012-05-27 发布日期:2012-05-27
  • 通讯作者: 白鹏程，主任医师，教授，硕士生导师，铜陵有色职工总医院骨科，安徽省铜陵市 244000 pengchengb@yahoo.com.cn
  • 作者简介:张媺，女，1958年生，安徽省铜陵市人，汉族，1982年安徽医学院毕业，副主任医师，主要从事关节及创伤外科疾病的研究。 Zm580808@163.com

Clinical application of spiral-type acetabulum and press-fit acetabulum

Zhang Mei, Bai Peng-cheng, Jiang Jian-ping, Wang Hui, Feng Xiao-zhi, Jin Shao-lin, Tong Xu-jun, Zhang Chang-yi, Li Yong   

  1. Department of Orhtopedics, Workers General Hospital of Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group, Tongling  244000, Anhui Province, China
  • Received:2012-01-19 Revised:2012-02-23 Online:2012-05-27 Published:2012-05-27
  • Contact: Bai Peng-cheng, Chief physician, Professor, Master’s supervisor, Department of Orhtopedics, Workers General Hospital of Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group, Tongling 244000, Anhui Province, China pengchengb@yahoo.com.cn
  • About author:Zhang Mei, Associate chief physician, Department of Orhtopedics, Workers General Hospital of Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group, Tongling 244000, Anhui Province, China Zm580808@163.com

PDF

365

被引次数

7

摘要：

背景：在人工全髋关节置换髋臼假体的选择上，多数研究认为螺旋型髋臼较压配型髋臼能的稳定性好。
目的：对比螺旋型髋臼与压配型髋臼两种不同全髋关节置换的临床疗效。
方法：回顾性分析选择螺旋型髋臼与压配型髋臼两种不同人工全髋关节置换39例患者临床资料。
结果与结论：①随访时间：随访4~51个月，平均32.6个月。②Harris评分：末次随访时两组Harris评分均较置换前明显提高(P < 0.05)，且螺旋型髋臼假体组稍高于压配型髋臼假体组，但差异无显著性意义。③不良反应：压配型髋臼假体组置换1年后松动1例，术后行走疼痛3例，髋臼假体周围成骨6例，髋臼假体周围出现透亮带3例，髋臼假体周围骨硬化1例，髋臼假体周围骨吸收1例；螺旋型髋臼假体组髋臼假体周围成骨3例，髋臼假体周围出现透亮带1例，髋臼假体周围骨吸收1例。表明螺旋型髋臼假体的初始稳定性优于压配型髋臼假体。
 

关键词: 髋臼, 全髋置换, 假体, 病例对照研究, 医学植入物

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Most studies suggest that the spiral-type acetabulum of total hip arthroplasty (THA) could provide better stability than the press-fit acetabulum.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of press-fit acetabulum and spiral-type acetabulum in THA.
METHODS: The retrospective analysis on the clinical data of 39 THA patients with press-fit acetabulum and spiral-type acetabulum was preformed. 
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: ①All cases were followed-up for 4-51 months, the average time was 32.6 months. ②Harris scores: Postoperative Harris scores were significantly improved than preoperative in the final follow-up (P < 0.05), and the score of the spiral-type acetabular group was slightly higher than that of press-fit acetabular group, but the difference was not significant. ③Adverse reactions: The postoperative complications of the press-fit acetabular arthroplasty group included looseness of hip prosthesis 1 case after 1 year, ambulation pain 3 cases, osteogenesis around acetabular prosthesis 6 cases, translucent around acetabular prosthesis 3 cases, osteosclerosis around acetabular prosthesis 1 case and bone resorption around acetabular prosthesis 1 case; the spiral-type acetabular group included osteogenesis around acetabular prosthesis 3 cases, translucent around acetabular prosthesis 1 cases and bone resorption around acetabular prosthesis 1 case. Therefore, the initial stability of the spiral-type acetabular prosthesis was better than that of the press-fit acetabular prosthesis.

中图分类号: