类似的股骨干固定,但较少的干骺端骨密度损失,采用锥形楔形设计,骨干骨保存采用长圆锥形设计:一项50例患者的5年随机RSA和DXA研究。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Peter Bo Jørgensen, Morten Homilius, Daan Koppens, Torben Bæk Hansen, Maiken Stilling
{"title":"类似的股骨干固定,但较少的干骺端骨密度损失,采用锥形楔形设计,骨干骨保存采用长圆锥形设计:一项50例患者的5年随机RSA和DXA研究。","authors":"Peter Bo Jørgensen, Morten Homilius, Daan Koppens, Torben Bæk Hansen, Maiken Stilling","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2025.43907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> The new Tri-Lock bone -preserving stem with a collarless proximal-coated tapered-wedge design was compared with a classic well-proven collarless proximal-coated long and round-tapered design. Our primary aim was to compare femoral stem fixation (subsidence) of the Tri-Lock stem with the classic Summit stem, and secondarily to compare the change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and PROMS between stem groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> In a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, 52 patients at mean age 60 (SD 6) received cementless Tri-Lock (n = 26) or Summit (n = 26) femoral stems with a cementless Pinnacle cup, a cross-linked polyethylene liner, and a CoCr head. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We measured mean (CI) values of migration and periprosthetic bone mineral density and calculated between group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> At 2-year follow-up, the mean difference in subsidence was 0.14 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.56) and below the chosen minimal clinically important difference of 0.6 mm. At 5-year follow-up, for the Tri-Lock and Summit stems, the mean subsidence was 0.38 (CI 0.04-0.72) and 0.24 (CI 0.09-0.57), and the mean retroversion was 1.68° (CI 0.80-2.55) and 1.53° (CI 0.68-2.37), respectively. There was initial periprosthetic BMD loss for both stems. At 5-year follow-up, the mean metaphyseal bone loss was minimal for the Tri-Lock stem (zone 1: -2.8% vs -11.5%) while the Summit stem preserved the medial diaphyseal bone better (zone 6: -7.1% vs -13.6%). At the medial stem tip, BMD was increased with the Summit stem (zone 5: +3.4% vs -1.5%). At 5-year follow-up, median EQ5D was 1 in both groups and median Oxford Hip Score was 47 (Tri-Lock) and 45 (Summit) with no statistical significant differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Tri-Lock and the Summit stems displayed similar migration until mid-term follow-up. At 3 months both stems had lost metaphyseal periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). During the following years, the new design regained more metaphyseal BMD. Contrarily, the long and round-tapered stem design regained or even increased diaphyseal BMD. PROM scores improved beyond the reference level for both groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"96 ","pages":"656-663"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12404101/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Similar femoral stem fixation but less metaphyseal loss of bone mineral density with a taper-wedge design and diaphyseal bone preservation with a long and round-tapered design: a 5-year randomized RSA and DXA study of 50 patients.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Bo Jørgensen, Morten Homilius, Daan Koppens, Torben Bæk Hansen, Maiken Stilling\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/17453674.2025.43907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> The new Tri-Lock bone -preserving stem with a collarless proximal-coated tapered-wedge design was compared with a classic well-proven collarless proximal-coated long and round-tapered design. Our primary aim was to compare femoral stem fixation (subsidence) of the Tri-Lock stem with the classic Summit stem, and secondarily to compare the change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and PROMS between stem groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> In a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, 52 patients at mean age 60 (SD 6) received cementless Tri-Lock (n = 26) or Summit (n = 26) femoral stems with a cementless Pinnacle cup, a cross-linked polyethylene liner, and a CoCr head. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We measured mean (CI) values of migration and periprosthetic bone mineral density and calculated between group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> At 2-year follow-up, the mean difference in subsidence was 0.14 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.56) and below the chosen minimal clinically important difference of 0.6 mm. At 5-year follow-up, for the Tri-Lock and Summit stems, the mean subsidence was 0.38 (CI 0.04-0.72) and 0.24 (CI 0.09-0.57), and the mean retroversion was 1.68° (CI 0.80-2.55) and 1.53° (CI 0.68-2.37), respectively. There was initial periprosthetic BMD loss for both stems. At 5-year follow-up, the mean metaphyseal bone loss was minimal for the Tri-Lock stem (zone 1: -2.8% vs -11.5%) while the Summit stem preserved the medial diaphyseal bone better (zone 6: -7.1% vs -13.6%). At the medial stem tip, BMD was increased with the Summit stem (zone 5: +3.4% vs -1.5%). At 5-year follow-up, median EQ5D was 1 in both groups and median Oxford Hip Score was 47 (Tri-Lock) and 45 (Summit) with no statistical significant differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Tri-Lock and the Summit stems displayed similar migration until mid-term follow-up. At 3 months both stems had lost metaphyseal periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). During the following years, the new design regained more metaphyseal BMD. Contrarily, the long and round-tapered stem design regained or even increased diaphyseal BMD. PROM scores improved beyond the reference level for both groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"volume\":\"96 \",\"pages\":\"656-663\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12404101/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43907\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43907","RegionNum":2,"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

背景与目的:将新型Tri-Lock近端无环包覆锥形楔形设计的保骨柄与经典的无环近端包覆长圆锥形设计进行比较。我们的主要目的是比较Tri-Lock柄与经典Summit柄的股骨柄固定(下沉),其次比较两组间假体周围骨矿物质密度(BMD)和PROMS的变化。方法:在一项患者盲法随机对照试验中,52例患者,平均年龄60岁(SD 6),接受无水泥Tri-Lock (n = 26)或Summit (n = 26)股骨干,置入无水泥Pinnacle杯、交联聚乙烯衬垫和CoCr头。通过放射立体分析(RSA)、双能x线吸收仪(DXA)和患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)对患者进行了5年的随访。我们测量迁移和假体周围骨矿物质密度的平均值(CI)值,并计算组间差异。结果:在2年的随访中,下沉的平均差异为0.14 mm(95%可信区间[CI] -0.27至0.56),低于所选择的最小临床重要差异0.6 mm。在5年随访中,Tri-Lock和Summit茎的平均下陷为0.38 (CI 0.04-0.72)和0.24 (CI 0.09-0.57),平均逆行度分别为1.68°(CI 0.80-2.55)和1.53°(CI 0.68-2.37)。两根假体周围最初都有骨密度损失。在5年随访中,Tri-Lock柄的平均干骺端骨丢失最小(1区:-2.8% vs -11.5%),而Summit柄保存内侧干骺端骨更好(6区:-7.1% vs -13.6%)。在内侧茎尖,骨密度随着顶茎的增加而增加(5区:+3.4% vs -1.5%)。随访5年,两组EQ5D中位数均为1,Oxford髋关节评分中位数分别为47 (Tri-Lock)和45 (Summit),两组间差异无统计学意义。结论:Tri-Lock和Summit茎在中期随访前表现出类似的迁移。3个月时,两根干均失去干骺端假体周围骨密度(BMD)。在接下来的几年里,新设计恢复了更多的干骺端骨密度。相反,长而圆锥形的柄设计恢复甚至增加了骨干骨密度。两组的PROM分数都超过了参考水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Similar femoral stem fixation but less metaphyseal loss of bone mineral density with a taper-wedge design and diaphyseal bone preservation with a long and round-tapered design: a 5-year randomized RSA and DXA study of 50 patients.

Similar femoral stem fixation but less metaphyseal loss of bone mineral density with a taper-wedge design and diaphyseal bone preservation with a long and round-tapered design: a 5-year randomized RSA and DXA study of 50 patients.

Similar femoral stem fixation but less metaphyseal loss of bone mineral density with a taper-wedge design and diaphyseal bone preservation with a long and round-tapered design: a 5-year randomized RSA and DXA study of 50 patients.

Similar femoral stem fixation but less metaphyseal loss of bone mineral density with a taper-wedge design and diaphyseal bone preservation with a long and round-tapered design: a 5-year randomized RSA and DXA study of 50 patients.

Background and purpose:  The new Tri-Lock bone -preserving stem with a collarless proximal-coated tapered-wedge design was compared with a classic well-proven collarless proximal-coated long and round-tapered design. Our primary aim was to compare femoral stem fixation (subsidence) of the Tri-Lock stem with the classic Summit stem, and secondarily to compare the change in periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and PROMS between stem groups.

Methods:  In a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, 52 patients at mean age 60 (SD 6) received cementless Tri-Lock (n = 26) or Summit (n = 26) femoral stems with a cementless Pinnacle cup, a cross-linked polyethylene liner, and a CoCr head. Patients were followed for 5 years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We measured mean (CI) values of migration and periprosthetic bone mineral density and calculated between group differences.

Results:  At 2-year follow-up, the mean difference in subsidence was 0.14 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.56) and below the chosen minimal clinically important difference of 0.6 mm. At 5-year follow-up, for the Tri-Lock and Summit stems, the mean subsidence was 0.38 (CI 0.04-0.72) and 0.24 (CI 0.09-0.57), and the mean retroversion was 1.68° (CI 0.80-2.55) and 1.53° (CI 0.68-2.37), respectively. There was initial periprosthetic BMD loss for both stems. At 5-year follow-up, the mean metaphyseal bone loss was minimal for the Tri-Lock stem (zone 1: -2.8% vs -11.5%) while the Summit stem preserved the medial diaphyseal bone better (zone 6: -7.1% vs -13.6%). At the medial stem tip, BMD was increased with the Summit stem (zone 5: +3.4% vs -1.5%). At 5-year follow-up, median EQ5D was 1 in both groups and median Oxford Hip Score was 47 (Tri-Lock) and 45 (Summit) with no statistical significant differences between groups.

Conclusion: The Tri-Lock and the Summit stems displayed similar migration until mid-term follow-up. At 3 months both stems had lost metaphyseal periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). During the following years, the new design regained more metaphyseal BMD. Contrarily, the long and round-tapered stem design regained or even increased diaphyseal BMD. PROM scores improved beyond the reference level for both groups.

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
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
×
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