4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in young adults with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: A comparative study

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00451

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The outcome of uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head in general, and in young adults in particular, remains largely unknown. This study evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of uncemented total hip arthroplasty in young adults with osteonecrosis of the femoral head and compared these results to those seen in young adults with osteoarthritis. Methods: Forty-one consecutive patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (fifty-two hips) and forty patients with osteoarthritis (fifty-two hips) were treated with an uncemented total hip arthroplasty at our institution. The mean age for the osteonecrosis group was thirty-eight years, and, for the osteoarthritis group, forty-two years. Clinical and radiographic outcomes at a minimum of two years were assessed. Results: At a mean duration of follow-up of three years, the functional improvement was significant in both groups (p < 0.05). The outcome was good to excellent for 94% (forty-nine hips) in the osteonecrosis group and 96% (fifty hips) in the osteoarthritis group. There were two revisions in the osteonecrosis group and one revision in the osteoarthritis group. Survivorship free of revision at the time of the latest follow-up was 96.1% for the osteonecrosis group and 98% for the osteoarthritis group. Conclusions: The short-term results of cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head were encouraging and comparable with the results of a matched group of patients with osteoarthritis. We await further follow-up to see if these promising results hold true. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors on jbjs.org for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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

4.6
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