4.5 Article

Muscle pedicle bone grafting using the anterior one-third of the gluteus medius attached to the greater trochanter for treatment of Association Research Circulation Osseousstage II osteonecrosis of the femoral head

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 2335-2341

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3839-5

关键词

Bone grafting; Osteonecrosis; Gluteus medius

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of our technique on further collapse of the femoral head in Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) stage II, patient's functional improvements, and analyze the survival rate of the affected hip. Methods Between June 2007 and March 2015, 24 hips diagnosed with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) were treated with our muscle pedicle bone grafting (MPBG) technique using anterior one-third of gluteus medius attached to the greater trochanter. The group was consisted of 15 men and eight women, mean age of 36years at the time of surgery. Mean follow-up was 6.2 years. Results Four hips showed regeneration, 11 hips showed no progression, and nine hips showed slight extent of the lesion. But during the follow-up, three hips underwent total hip arthroplasty at the mean follow-up of 5.8 years after the surgery. The survival rate at the last follow-up was approximately 87.5%. Excluding the three failed cases, the mean total Harris hip score was improved from 57.2 to 82.3 points (p < 0.05). We had no case of complications such as limping, numbness, wound infection, heterotopic ossification, nor intra- and post-operative fracture. Conclusion We showed 87.5% of survival rate by average of 6.2-year follow-up, maximum of 10.1 years. And compared to other reports, our technique showed relatively good results. In the short term, our modified MPBG technique seems to be effective in ARCO stage II ONFH. We, therefore, suggest this technique as one of the promising treatments of choices for patients with ARCO stage II ONFH.

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