比较外侧入路与后路半置换术治疗股骨颈骨折的疗效:一项随机对照试验

P. Kafle, R. Maharjan, P. Chaudhary, A. B. Shah, Nishchal Rijal, Pratikshya Dawadi
{"title":"比较外侧入路与后路半置换术治疗股骨颈骨折的疗效:一项随机对照试验","authors":"P. Kafle, R. Maharjan, P. Chaudhary, A. B. Shah, Nishchal Rijal, Pratikshya Dawadi","doi":"10.3126/jkmc.v11i2.48667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Among commonly used approaches, posterior approach (Moore’s) results in better regain of function as it require less muscle dissection, while the lateral approach (Hardinge’s) has a lower risk of dislocation. Objectives: To compare the functional outcome between lateral and posterior approaches for hemiarthroplasty. Methods: This parallel design randomised controlled trial of equivalence (allocation ratio 1:1) was conducted in the department of orthopaedics, BP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences with institutional ethical clearance. Fifty eligible patients of >60 years with isolated traumatic displaced neck of femur fracture, presenting during study period from September 2017 to August 2019, were conveniently recruited and randomly allocated by using computerised Excel random number generation technique to undergo hemi-replacement arthroplasty either by lateral approach (N = 25) or by posterior approach (N = 25) and were evaluated at six weeks, three months, six months, and twelve months. Final statistical analysis was done using SPSS v.20 software among 45 patients because four deceased and one was lost to follow-up. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The functional outcome as measured by the Modified Harris Hip score at one year was 83.78 ± 5.89 for lateral approach and 80.40 ± 7.56 for posterior approach group (p = 0.102). The hip pain, mean blood loss, operative time, and prothesis size was similar between the two approaches. Conclusion: The study showed that there was no significant difference between the two approaches for hemireplacement arthroplasty in terms of mean operating time, hip pain, and functional outcomes.","PeriodicalId":254049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Kathmandu Medical College","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the outcome of lateral versus posterior approach for hemi-replacement arthroplasty for neck of femur fracture: A randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"P. Kafle, R. Maharjan, P. Chaudhary, A. B. Shah, Nishchal Rijal, Pratikshya Dawadi\",\"doi\":\"10.3126/jkmc.v11i2.48667\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Among commonly used approaches, posterior approach (Moore’s) results in better regain of function as it require less muscle dissection, while the lateral approach (Hardinge’s) has a lower risk of dislocation. Objectives: To compare the functional outcome between lateral and posterior approaches for hemiarthroplasty. Methods: This parallel design randomised controlled trial of equivalence (allocation ratio 1:1) was conducted in the department of orthopaedics, BP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences with institutional ethical clearance. Fifty eligible patients of >60 years with isolated traumatic displaced neck of femur fracture, presenting during study period from September 2017 to August 2019, were conveniently recruited and randomly allocated by using computerised Excel random number generation technique to undergo hemi-replacement arthroplasty either by lateral approach (N = 25) or by posterior approach (N = 25) and were evaluated at six weeks, three months, six months, and twelve months. Final statistical analysis was done using SPSS v.20 software among 45 patients because four deceased and one was lost to follow-up. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The functional outcome as measured by the Modified Harris Hip score at one year was 83.78 ± 5.89 for lateral approach and 80.40 ± 7.56 for posterior approach group (p = 0.102). The hip pain, mean blood loss, operative time, and prothesis size was similar between the two approaches. Conclusion: The study showed that there was no significant difference between the two approaches for hemireplacement arthroplasty in terms of mean operating time, hip pain, and functional outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Kathmandu Medical College\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Kathmandu Medical College\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3126/jkmc.v11i2.48667\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Kathmandu Medical College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/jkmc.v11i2.48667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在常用的入路中,后路(Moore’s)因其需要较少的肌肉剥离而能较好地恢复功能,而外侧入路(Hardinge’s)脱位的风险较低。目的:比较外侧入路和后路半关节置换术的功能预后。方法:该平行设计随机对照试验(分配比例1:1)在英国石油柯伊拉腊卫生科学研究所骨科进行,并获得机构伦理许可。在2017年9月至2019年8月的研究期间,采用计算机化Excel随机数生成技术,方便地招募并随机分配50例>60岁的孤立性外伤性股骨颈移位骨折患者,通过外侧入路(N = 25)或后路(N = 25)进行半置换术,并在6周,3个月,6个月和12个月时进行评估。45例患者因4例死亡,1例失访,最终采用SPSS v.20软件进行统计分析。p值<0.05认为有统计学意义。结果:改良Harris髋关节评分1年时,外侧入路组的功能评分为83.78±5.89,后路入路组为80.40±7.56 (p = 0.102)。髋关节疼痛、平均出血量、手术时间和假体大小在两种入路之间相似。结论:研究表明,两种方法在平均手术时间、髋关节疼痛和功能结局方面无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the outcome of lateral versus posterior approach for hemi-replacement arthroplasty for neck of femur fracture: A randomised controlled trial
Background: Among commonly used approaches, posterior approach (Moore’s) results in better regain of function as it require less muscle dissection, while the lateral approach (Hardinge’s) has a lower risk of dislocation. Objectives: To compare the functional outcome between lateral and posterior approaches for hemiarthroplasty. Methods: This parallel design randomised controlled trial of equivalence (allocation ratio 1:1) was conducted in the department of orthopaedics, BP Koirala Institute of Health Sciences with institutional ethical clearance. Fifty eligible patients of >60 years with isolated traumatic displaced neck of femur fracture, presenting during study period from September 2017 to August 2019, were conveniently recruited and randomly allocated by using computerised Excel random number generation technique to undergo hemi-replacement arthroplasty either by lateral approach (N = 25) or by posterior approach (N = 25) and were evaluated at six weeks, three months, six months, and twelve months. Final statistical analysis was done using SPSS v.20 software among 45 patients because four deceased and one was lost to follow-up. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The functional outcome as measured by the Modified Harris Hip score at one year was 83.78 ± 5.89 for lateral approach and 80.40 ± 7.56 for posterior approach group (p = 0.102). The hip pain, mean blood loss, operative time, and prothesis size was similar between the two approaches. Conclusion: The study showed that there was no significant difference between the two approaches for hemireplacement arthroplasty in terms of mean operating time, hip pain, and functional outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信