两种方法在全髋关节置换后早期疗效对比研究

A comparative study on early efficacy of application of Corail stem and Lubinus SPII stem in total hip arthroplasty

目的评价水泥柄LubinuS SPII假体与生物柄Corail假体在全髋关节置换治疗老年患者髋部疾病的临床疗效。方法选择2011年1月至2013年6月行髋关节置换的患者56例(共72髋),分为两组,水泥组26例(34髋)使用LubinuS SPII假体,生物组30例(38髋)使用Corai假体。术后连续随访3年。术后以Harris评分评估髋关节功能、活动度及并发症。结果两种假体置换后2年和3年的Harris评分有所不同(P<0.05),水泥组3年后无假体松动发生,3例发生骨溶解;生物型假体置换3年后1例发生溶骨性疾病,无假体松动发生。结论 Corail全涂层股骨柄假体治疗髋部疾病与高性能骨水泥LubinuS SPII柄假体相比,其早期临床疗效和稳定性欠佳,但术后3年疗效尚可,手术并发症、手术时间、术中出血均低于骨水泥假体,其长期临床效果仍需进一步研究。

Objective To retrospectively analyze the significance of cement femoral stem prosthesis of Lubinus SPII and cement prosthesis of Corail in total hip replacement for treatment of elderly patients with hip disease and to evaluate the effect of treatment. Methods A total of 56 patients （72 hips） performed hip replacement in this hospital during January 2007 to June 2010 were divided into two groups, cement group and biological group, 26 cases （34 hips） in cement group were performed with Lubinus SPII prosthesis, and 30 patients （38 hips） in biological group were performed with Corail prosthesis based hip arthroplasty. All these patients were followed up for 3 years. The postoperative Harris hip scores, function of hip, activity and complications were assessed in these 2 groups. Results In the follow - up of 60 patients, except four cases lost con- tact, only 56 cases had been continuously followed up, these two kinds of prosthesis were evaluated by Harris scores in two years and three years after the operation （ P 〈 0.05 ）, patients in cement group in 3 years later, no loosening of prosthesis occurred, but osteolysis occurred in three ca- ses; and patients in biological prosthesis group after three years, osteolysis occurred in one case, but no loosening. Conclusion In comparison with Corail fully coated femoral hip prosthesis and bone cement LubinuS SPII stem prosthesis, its early clinical efficacy and stability is tx^or, but it can still be effective after three years, and surgical complications, operating time and blood loss were lesser than those of bone cement prosthesis, hence its long -term clinical outcome requires further study.