双活动杯全髋关节置换术治疗髋部骨折固定失败。

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-15 DOI:10.4055/cios24372
Min Uk Do, Jae-Seung Seo, Sang Woo Kang, Hyun Tae Koo, Kuen Tak Suh, Won Chul Shin
{"title":"双活动杯全髋关节置换术治疗髋部骨折固定失败。","authors":"Min Uk Do, Jae-Seung Seo, Sang Woo Kang, Hyun Tae Koo, Kuen Tak Suh, Won Chul Shin","doi":"10.4055/cios24372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgroud: </strong>Conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most common treatment for older patients following failed hip fracture fixation. However, the dislocation rate after conversion THA is higher than that after primary THA for arthritis. Recent studies have reported that a dual-mobility (DM) cup has a lower dislocation rate than fixed-bearing (FB) THA. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of conversion THA using a DM cup for failed hip fracture fixation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between April 2015 and June 2021, 116 patients underwent conversion THA for failed hip fracture fixation at a tertiary hospital. Among them, 83 and 33 cases using the FB and DM cups, respectively, were included in the study. The following outcomes were assessed and compared between the 2 groups: reoperation, dislocation, intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, and modified Harris hip score (mHHS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the FB and DM groups in terms of radiological outcomes, reoperation, IPD, periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, or mHHS. In particular, there was no statistically significant difference in the dislocation rate between the FB and DM groups (6.02% and 3.03%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.673).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The dislocation rate in the DM group was lower than that in the FB group, with a relative risk of 0.50, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest that DM implants may be potentially beneficial options in such cases; however, further research is required to confirm this trend.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":"17 4","pages":"575-581"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12328118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for Failed Hip Fracture Fixation.\",\"authors\":\"Min Uk Do, Jae-Seung Seo, Sang Woo Kang, Hyun Tae Koo, Kuen Tak Suh, Won Chul Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.4055/cios24372\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Backgroud: </strong>Conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most common treatment for older patients following failed hip fracture fixation. However, the dislocation rate after conversion THA is higher than that after primary THA for arthritis. Recent studies have reported that a dual-mobility (DM) cup has a lower dislocation rate than fixed-bearing (FB) THA. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of conversion THA using a DM cup for failed hip fracture fixation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between April 2015 and June 2021, 116 patients underwent conversion THA for failed hip fracture fixation at a tertiary hospital. Among them, 83 and 33 cases using the FB and DM cups, respectively, were included in the study. The following outcomes were assessed and compared between the 2 groups: reoperation, dislocation, intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, and modified Harris hip score (mHHS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the FB and DM groups in terms of radiological outcomes, reoperation, IPD, periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, or mHHS. In particular, there was no statistically significant difference in the dislocation rate between the FB and DM groups (6.02% and 3.03%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.673).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The dislocation rate in the DM group was lower than that in the FB group, with a relative risk of 0.50, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest that DM implants may be potentially beneficial options in such cases; however, further research is required to confirm this trend.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"575-581\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12328118/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24372\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios24372","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全髋关节置换术是老年患者髋部骨折固定失败后最常见的治疗方法。然而,关节炎转行THA后脱位率高于原发性THA后脱位率。最近的研究报道,双活动杯(DM)的脱位率低于固定轴承(FB) THA。本研究旨在评估DM杯置换THA治疗髋部骨折固定失败的结果。方法:2015年4月至2021年6月,116例髋部骨折固定失败的患者在某三级医院接受了置换髋关节置换术。其中FB杯和DM杯分别纳入83例和33例。评估并比较两组患者再手术、脱位、假体内游离(IPD)、假体周围骨折、深关节感染和改良Harris髋关节评分(mHHS)。结果:FB组与DM组在影像学结果、再手术、IPD、假体周围骨折、深关节感染、mHHS方面无显著差异。特别是FB组和DM组的脱位率差异无统计学意义(分别为6.02%和3.03%);P = 0.673)。结论:DM组脱位率低于FB组,相对危险度为0.50,但差异无统计学意义。这些发现表明,在这种情况下,DM植入物可能是潜在的有益选择;然而,需要进一步的研究来证实这一趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for Failed Hip Fracture Fixation.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for Failed Hip Fracture Fixation.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for Failed Hip Fracture Fixation.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for Failed Hip Fracture Fixation.

Backgroud: Conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most common treatment for older patients following failed hip fracture fixation. However, the dislocation rate after conversion THA is higher than that after primary THA for arthritis. Recent studies have reported that a dual-mobility (DM) cup has a lower dislocation rate than fixed-bearing (FB) THA. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of conversion THA using a DM cup for failed hip fracture fixation.

Methods: Between April 2015 and June 2021, 116 patients underwent conversion THA for failed hip fracture fixation at a tertiary hospital. Among them, 83 and 33 cases using the FB and DM cups, respectively, were included in the study. The following outcomes were assessed and compared between the 2 groups: reoperation, dislocation, intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, and modified Harris hip score (mHHS).

Results: There were no significant differences between the FB and DM groups in terms of radiological outcomes, reoperation, IPD, periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, or mHHS. In particular, there was no statistically significant difference in the dislocation rate between the FB and DM groups (6.02% and 3.03%, respectively; p = 0.673).

Conclusions: The dislocation rate in the DM group was lower than that in the FB group, with a relative risk of 0.50, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest that DM implants may be potentially beneficial options in such cases; however, further research is required to confirm this trend.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
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