{"title":"作为关节型髋关节垫片用于治疗慢性人工关节感染的骨水泥约束衬垫","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2024.101422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for treating chronic hip periprosthetic joint infections. However, controversy remains regarding the optimal spacer type, particularly among patients with increased dislocation risk. This study reports on the outcomes of articulating hip spacers utilizing a single constrained-liner design.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>All patients who underwent treatment for hip periprosthetic joint infection at a single institution were screened. Patients were included if they received an articulating spacer utilizing a constrained liner of a single manufacturer design. Indications for constrained liner, demographic variables, and surgical variables were recorded. Patients were assessed for dislocation and component loosening prior to the second stage or at the final follow-up if the second stage was not undertaken. Comparative analysis was performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 26 constrained liners were utilized in 25 patients. Indications for constrained liner included history of dislocation (n = 14), massive proximal femoral bone loss (n = 14), greater trochanteric deficiency (n = 12), and absent abductors (n = 7). Many patients had more than one indication. In total, 9 hips (34.6%) underwent a second stage at an average of 7.4 months, while 17 hips never underwent a second stage with an average follow-up of 27.6 months. One patient experienced failure of their constrained liner prior to the second stage due to pelvic discontinuity and massive acetabular bone loss.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Utilization of a constrained liner as an articulating spacer is a viable option for patients at high risk of instability. Meticulous cement technique, appropriate component position, and implant selection are crucial in achieving successful outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124001079/pdfft?md5=3ae678eab9f89e8b0becece9a9e5edfa&pid=1-s2.0-S2352344124001079-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cemented Constrained Liners Used as an Articulating Hip Spacer for the Treatment of Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infection\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.artd.2024.101422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for treating chronic hip periprosthetic joint infections. However, controversy remains regarding the optimal spacer type, particularly among patients with increased dislocation risk. This study reports on the outcomes of articulating hip spacers utilizing a single constrained-liner design.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>All patients who underwent treatment for hip periprosthetic joint infection at a single institution were screened. Patients were included if they received an articulating spacer utilizing a constrained liner of a single manufacturer design. Indications for constrained liner, demographic variables, and surgical variables were recorded. Patients were assessed for dislocation and component loosening prior to the second stage or at the final follow-up if the second stage was not undertaken. Comparative analysis was performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 26 constrained liners were utilized in 25 patients. Indications for constrained liner included history of dislocation (n = 14), massive proximal femoral bone loss (n = 14), greater trochanteric deficiency (n = 12), and absent abductors (n = 7). Many patients had more than one indication. In total, 9 hips (34.6%) underwent a second stage at an average of 7.4 months, while 17 hips never underwent a second stage with an average follow-up of 27.6 months. One patient experienced failure of their constrained liner prior to the second stage due to pelvic discontinuity and massive acetabular bone loss.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Utilization of a constrained liner as an articulating spacer is a viable option for patients at high risk of instability. Meticulous cement technique, appropriate component position, and implant selection are crucial in achieving successful outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroplasty Today\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124001079/pdfft?md5=3ae678eab9f89e8b0becece9a9e5edfa&pid=1-s2.0-S2352344124001079-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroplasty Today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124001079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344124001079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cemented Constrained Liners Used as an Articulating Hip Spacer for the Treatment of Chronic Prosthetic Joint Infection
Background
Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the gold standard for treating chronic hip periprosthetic joint infections. However, controversy remains regarding the optimal spacer type, particularly among patients with increased dislocation risk. This study reports on the outcomes of articulating hip spacers utilizing a single constrained-liner design.
Methods
All patients who underwent treatment for hip periprosthetic joint infection at a single institution were screened. Patients were included if they received an articulating spacer utilizing a constrained liner of a single manufacturer design. Indications for constrained liner, demographic variables, and surgical variables were recorded. Patients were assessed for dislocation and component loosening prior to the second stage or at the final follow-up if the second stage was not undertaken. Comparative analysis was performed.
Results
Overall, 26 constrained liners were utilized in 25 patients. Indications for constrained liner included history of dislocation (n = 14), massive proximal femoral bone loss (n = 14), greater trochanteric deficiency (n = 12), and absent abductors (n = 7). Many patients had more than one indication. In total, 9 hips (34.6%) underwent a second stage at an average of 7.4 months, while 17 hips never underwent a second stage with an average follow-up of 27.6 months. One patient experienced failure of their constrained liner prior to the second stage due to pelvic discontinuity and massive acetabular bone loss.
Conclusions
Utilization of a constrained liner as an articulating spacer is a viable option for patients at high risk of instability. Meticulous cement technique, appropriate component position, and implant selection are crucial in achieving successful outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.