Nick Smeitink, Femke F Schröder, Oscar Dorrestijn, Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren, Louise H M Govaert, Egbert J D Veen
{"title":"半肩关节置换术和全肩关节置换术治疗肱骨头非外伤性缺血性坏死的4年假体存活率。","authors":"Nick Smeitink, Femke F Schröder, Oscar Dorrestijn, Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren, Louise H M Govaert, Egbert J D Veen","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0459.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are often the preferred forms of treatment for patients with atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head when conservative treatment fails. Little has been reported about the survival of HA and TSA for this indication. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in revision rates between HA and TSA in these patients, to determine whether one of these implants has a superior survival and may be a better choice in the treatment of this condition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 280 shoulders with 159 primary HAs and 121 TSAs, which were undertaken in patients with atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head between January 2014 and January 2023 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within four years of follow-up, a total of 15 revisions were required, involving seven HAs (4%) and eight TSAs (7%). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.523). Two HAs were revised because of progressive glenoid erosion, and three TSAs were revised for loosening of the glenoid component. The cumulative percentages of revision of HA and TSA were 6% and 8%, respectively (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.7)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no significant difference in short- to mid-term implant survival between the use of a HA and a TSA in the treatment of atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head, without significant glenoid wear.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"107-B 1","pages":"97-102"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implant survival at four years for hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head.\",\"authors\":\"Nick Smeitink, Femke F Schröder, Oscar Dorrestijn, Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren, Louise H M Govaert, Egbert J D Veen\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0459.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are often the preferred forms of treatment for patients with atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head when conservative treatment fails. Little has been reported about the survival of HA and TSA for this indication. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in revision rates between HA and TSA in these patients, to determine whether one of these implants has a superior survival and may be a better choice in the treatment of this condition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 280 shoulders with 159 primary HAs and 121 TSAs, which were undertaken in patients with atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head between January 2014 and January 2023 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within four years of follow-up, a total of 15 revisions were required, involving seven HAs (4%) and eight TSAs (7%). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.523). Two HAs were revised because of progressive glenoid erosion, and three TSAs were revised for loosening of the glenoid component. The cumulative percentages of revision of HA and TSA were 6% and 8%, respectively (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.7)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no significant difference in short- to mid-term implant survival between the use of a HA and a TSA in the treatment of atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head, without significant glenoid wear.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"volume\":\"107-B 1\",\"pages\":\"97-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0459.R1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0459.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:当保守治疗失败时,半关节置换术(HA)和全肩关节置换术(TSA)通常是肱骨头非外伤性缺血性坏死患者的首选治疗方式。很少有关于HA和TSA在这一适应症中的生存率的报道。本研究的目的是研究HA和TSA在这些患者中翻修率的差异,以确定其中一种植入物是否具有更高的生存率,并可能是治疗这种疾病的更好选择。方法:2014年1月至2023年1月,来自荷兰关节置换术登记(LROI)的280例肩关节,159例原发性HAs和121例tsa,这些患者均为肱骨头非外伤性缺血性坏死患者。进行Kaplan-Meier生存分析和Cox回归分析。结果:在四年的随访中,总共需要15次修订,包括7例HAs(4%)和8例tsa(7%)。差异无统计学意义(p = 0.523)。由于进行性关节盂糜烂,对2例HAs进行了修改,对3例tsa进行了修改,原因是关节盂部分松动。HA和TSA修改的累积百分比分别为6%和8% (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.5至2.7))。结论:我们发现在治疗肱骨头非外伤性缺血性坏死时,使用HA和TSA在短期和中期种植体存活率上没有显著差异,没有明显的肩关节磨损。
Implant survival at four years for hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head.
Aims: Hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are often the preferred forms of treatment for patients with atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head when conservative treatment fails. Little has been reported about the survival of HA and TSA for this indication. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in revision rates between HA and TSA in these patients, to determine whether one of these implants has a superior survival and may be a better choice in the treatment of this condition.
Methods: Data from 280 shoulders with 159 primary HAs and 121 TSAs, which were undertaken in patients with atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head between January 2014 and January 2023 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were undertaken.
Results: Within four years of follow-up, a total of 15 revisions were required, involving seven HAs (4%) and eight TSAs (7%). This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.523). Two HAs were revised because of progressive glenoid erosion, and three TSAs were revised for loosening of the glenoid component. The cumulative percentages of revision of HA and TSA were 6% and 8%, respectively (HR 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.7)).
Conclusion: We found no significant difference in short- to mid-term implant survival between the use of a HA and a TSA in the treatment of atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head, without significant glenoid wear.
期刊介绍:
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.