4.5 Article

Long-term follow-up outcomes for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with uncemented versus cemented femoral components: a retrospective observational study with a 5-year minimum follow-up

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1415-3

关键词

Uncemented; Cemented; Total hip arthroplasty; Femoral neck fracture; Complication

资金

  1. Shanghai Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission Fund Project [201640057]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81971315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This retrospective analysis compared the long-term outcomes for patients with a femoral neck fracture (AO/OTA type 31B) treated with a primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty with uncemented or cemented femoral components (UTHA or CTHA, respectively). Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the South China Hip Arthroplasty Database. We identified 422 patients with femoral neck fracture (AO/OTA type 31B) who were previously treated with primary unilateral UTHA or CTHA between 2007 and 2015, with follow-up until 2019. Follow-up occurred 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. The primary outcome was the Harris hip score (HHS). The secondary outcome was the orthopaedic complication rate. Results In total, 324 patients (UTHA n = 160, mean age 68.61 +/- 7.49 years; CTHA n = 164, mean age 68.75 +/- 7.04 years) were evaluated for study eligibility. The median follow-up was 73.3 months (range, 11.6-89.2 months). At the final follow-up, HHS was 74.09 +/- 6.23 vs 79.01 +/- 10.21 (UTHA vs CTHA, p = 0.012). Significant differences were detected in the incidence of prosthetic revision, loosening, and periprosthetic fracture between the UTHA and CTHA groups (7.5% for UTHA vs 1.8% for CTHA, p = 0.015; 17.5% for UTHA vs 8.5% for CTHA, p = 0.016; 11.9% for UTHA vs 4.9% for CTHA, p = 0.021, respectively). Conclusion In this setting, CTHA demonstrated superiority to UTHA by improving functional outcomes and decreasing complication rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据