Background The acetabular teardrop is often used to guide acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty （THA）.Placing the lower acetabular component aspect at the same level as the lower teardrop edge was...Background The acetabular teardrop is often used to guide acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty （THA）.Placing the lower acetabular component aspect at the same level as the lower teardrop edge was assumed to restore the hip center of rotation.Here we radiographically analyzed the relationship between cup center and normal contralateral acetabulum center height on unilateral THA using this placement method.Methods A total of 106 unilateral THA cases with normal contralateral acetabula were reviewed and the vertical and horizontal distances in relation to the lower acetabular teardrop edge from both hip joint centers,cup inclination,and anteversion were measured radiographically.The paired t-test was used to compare left and right hip center heights.Scatter plots and Pearson＇s correlation coefficients were used to evaluate differences in hip center heights,cup anteversion,inclination angles,and medialized cup center distance compared to the contralateral hip joint.Results Cup center height was significantly greater （P ＜0.01） than contralateral hip joint center height （93.4％ in the 0-5 mm range,6.6％ ＞5 mm）.There was a weak correlation between hip center height difference and inclination （r=0.376,P ＜0.01） and between difference and anteversion （r=0.310,P ＜0.01） but no correlation between difference and outer cup diameter （r=0.184,P=0.058） or difference and medialized cup center distance （r＝-0.098,P=0.318）.Conclusions Although this method did not exactly replicate anatomic hip center height,the clinical significance of cup center height and anatomic hip center height differences is negligible.This acetabular component placement method has high simplicity,reliability,and stability.展开更多
AIM: To determine hip joint center(HJC) location on hip arthroplasty population comparing predictive and functional approaches with radiographic measurements.METHODS: The distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis wa...AIM: To determine hip joint center(HJC) location on hip arthroplasty population comparing predictive and functional approaches with radiographic measurements.METHODS: The distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis was calculated and compared between the three approaches. The localisation error between the predictive and functional approach was compared using the radiographic measurements as the reference. The operated leg was compared to the non-operated leg.RESULTS: A significant difference was found for the distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis when comparing the predictive and functional method. The functional method leads to fewer errors. A statistical difference was found for the localization error between the predictive and functional method. The functional method is twice more precise.CONCLUSION: Although being more individualized, the functional method improves HJC localization and should be used in three-dimensional gait analysis.展开更多
目的:探讨高髋关节中心技术全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)治疗CroweⅡ、Ⅲ型发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of hip,DDH)并重度髋关节炎(hip osteoarthritis,HOA)的临床疗效。方法:2018年1月至2020年1月收...目的:探讨高髋关节中心技术全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)治疗CroweⅡ、Ⅲ型发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of hip,DDH)并重度髋关节炎(hip osteoarthritis,HOA)的临床疗效。方法:2018年1月至2020年1月收治CroweⅡ、Ⅲ型DDH并重度HOA患者74例,37例行解剖型髋关节中心重建为对照组,其中男7例,女30例,年龄42~65(58.40±4.98)岁,身体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)18~29(23.02±2.21)kg·m^(-2)。37例行高髋关节中心技术重建为研究组,其中男5例,女32例,年龄41~65(57.31±5.42)岁,BMI 18~29(23.14±2.07)kg·m^(-2)。患者术前表现髋关节疼痛、功能及关节活动度受限、步态不稳等。比较两组围术期指标,术前及术后3、6、12个月分别评估患者髋关节功能、平衡功能及步态情况,术前及术后12个月测量双下肢长度差、旋转中心水平距离、旋转中心垂直距离、股骨偏心距。结果:术后随访12个月,研究组失访1例,对照组失访2例。研究组手术时间短于对照组,术中出血量少于对照组(P<0.05)。术后3、6个月研究组Harris评分、Berg平衡量表(Berg balance scale,BBS)评分、步速、步频、单步长大于对照组(P<0.05),术后12个月以上指标组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后12个月,研究组旋转中心垂直距离大于对照组(P<0.05),两组双下肢长度差、旋转中心水平距离、股骨偏心距比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组均未出现并发症。结论:两种髋关节中心重建方式应用于DDH并重度HOA患者THA远期效果相当,安全性良好,且高髋关节中心技术重建可缩短手术时间,减少术中出血量,同时在早期恢复患者髋关节功能、平衡功能及步行功能方面具有一定优势。展开更多
目的:使用CT联合Mimics软件测量全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)后股骨偏心距(femoral offset,FO)、旋转中心高度(rotation center height,RCH)与双下肢长度差(lower leg length discrepancy,LLD),并探讨THA后FO、RCH与LLD...目的:使用CT联合Mimics软件测量全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)后股骨偏心距(femoral offset,FO)、旋转中心高度(rotation center height,RCH)与双下肢长度差(lower leg length discrepancy,LLD),并探讨THA后FO、RCH与LLD的关系。方法:回顾性分析2020年10月至2022年6月符合标准的40例行单侧THA的患者,其中男21例,女19例;年龄30~81(58.90±14.13)岁;身体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)为17.3~31.5(25.3±3.4)kg·m^(-2);左侧18例,右侧22例。诊断为股骨头坏死30例(FicatⅣ期),髋关节骨性关节炎2例(TünnisⅢ期),发育性髋关节脱位合并终末期骨关节炎2例(CroweⅢ期),股骨颈骨折6例(GardenⅣ期)。术前、术后拍摄骨盆CT三维重建,经Mimics软件处理后建立三维重建模型,在模型上对FO、RCH、LLD进行测量。结果:术后双侧FO差值与LLD呈正相关性(r=0.744,P<0.001);将FO重建组与偏心距未重建组进行卡方检验得出:FO重建组下肢等长率高于FO未重建组(χ^(2)=6.320,P=0.012)。术后双侧RCH差值与LLD呈负相关性(r=-0.877,P<0.001);双侧FO差值及双侧RCH差值与术后LLD之间存在线性关系,且满足线性回归方程:术后LLD=0.038x-0.099y+0.257(x为术后双侧FO差值;y为术后双侧RCH差值;单位为cm),F=77.993,R2=0.808,P=0.009。结论:THA术后LLD随着FO的增大而增大,随着RCH增大而减小;重建FO更易获得下肢等长效果。THA术后双侧FO差值及双侧RCH差值与LLD之间存在线性关系,回归方程可为判断LLD提供一种理论参考。展开更多
目的评价内侧突出技术对成人发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of the hip,DDH)患者THA术后外展肌力恢复的影响。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2021年12月于武汉大学人民医院因DDH、股骨颈骨折、股骨头坏死及髋关节骨性关节...目的评价内侧突出技术对成人发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of the hip,DDH)患者THA术后外展肌力恢复的影响。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2021年12月于武汉大学人民医院因DDH、股骨颈骨折、股骨头坏死及髋关节骨性关节炎行单侧髋关节置换116例患者,将患者分为DDH组(52例)及非DDH组(64例)。在术前,术后1、4、24及48周进行临床数据采集,具体包括Harris评分、VAS疼痛评分、双侧髋关节外展肌肌力矩比(HAMMR)。通过骨盆正位平片测量髋关节旋转中心内移距离,比较两组间外展肌力矩差异。结果患者随访时间12~18个月,平均随访时间14.3个月,其中DDH组52例患者髋关节Harris评分从术前(39.6±7.9)分改善至术后12个月(85.1±6.2)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。DDH组52例患者髋关节旋转中心内移距离平均(15.5±6.0)mm,最小内移距离8 mm,最大内移距离24.4 mm,其中CroweⅠ型24例,CroweⅡ型19例,CroweⅢ型9例,DDH组患者术后6个月及12个月HAMMR分别为(85.3±7.4)%及(93.9±3.6)%,较术前显著改善(P<0.05),提示患侧外展肌力恢复接近对侧水平(100%)。通过皮尔逊相关性分析,旋转中心内移距离与HAMMR无明显相关性(r=-0.061,P=0.665>0.05)。对DDH组与非DDH组间HAMMR进行独立样本t检验发现,在术后1、5、12个月HAMMR比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论DDH患者行THA术应用内侧突出技术,在有限范围内移旋转中心(内移距离不超过24.4 mm),对术后6个月后髋关节外展肌力的恢复无明显影响,术后髋关节功能及外展肌力得到明显改善。展开更多
目的比较全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)中行髋臼原位重建及高髋关节中心技术治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of the hip,DDH)的临床疗效。方法对2012年8月至2015年12月于我科行THA治疗C...目的比较全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)中行髋臼原位重建及高髋关节中心技术治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of the hip,DDH)的临床疗效。方法对2012年8月至2015年12月于我科行THA治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型DDH合并髋关节骨性关节炎(Tonnis Ⅲ期)的37例病例进行回顾性分析,根据髋臼重建方式分组:其中髋臼原位重建组17例,高髋关节中心重建组20例。比较两组病人的手术时间、手术出血量、Harris评分、影像学假体松动率。结果37例病人平均随访41个月(25~63个月)。髋臼原位重建组的手术时间和手术出血量分别为(119±16)min、(413±36)ml,高髋关节中心重建组的手术时间和手术出血量分别为(92±21)min、(389±44)ml,两组间比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=29.561,P=0.021;t=0.682,P=0.231)。两组术后的Harris评分均较术前显著提高,但两组间术前及末次随访的Harris评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。髋臼原位重建组中有2例少量植骨吸收,两组随访未见影像学假体松动。结论高髋关节中心技术的手术时间较髋臼原位重建更短,两种技术治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型DDH的中期临床疗效较好,均可显著恢复病人的髋关节功能。展开更多
文摘Background The acetabular teardrop is often used to guide acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty （THA）.Placing the lower acetabular component aspect at the same level as the lower teardrop edge was assumed to restore the hip center of rotation.Here we radiographically analyzed the relationship between cup center and normal contralateral acetabulum center height on unilateral THA using this placement method.Methods A total of 106 unilateral THA cases with normal contralateral acetabula were reviewed and the vertical and horizontal distances in relation to the lower acetabular teardrop edge from both hip joint centers,cup inclination,and anteversion were measured radiographically.The paired t-test was used to compare left and right hip center heights.Scatter plots and Pearson＇s correlation coefficients were used to evaluate differences in hip center heights,cup anteversion,inclination angles,and medialized cup center distance compared to the contralateral hip joint.Results Cup center height was significantly greater （P ＜0.01） than contralateral hip joint center height （93.4％ in the 0-5 mm range,6.6％ ＞5 mm）.There was a weak correlation between hip center height difference and inclination （r=0.376,P ＜0.01） and between difference and anteversion （r=0.310,P ＜0.01） but no correlation between difference and outer cup diameter （r=0.184,P=0.058） or difference and medialized cup center distance （r＝-0.098,P=0.318）.Conclusions Although this method did not exactly replicate anatomic hip center height,the clinical significance of cup center height and anatomic hip center height differences is negligible.This acetabular component placement method has high simplicity,reliability,and stability.
基金Canadian Institute of Health Science(CIHR)and Zimmer,Warsaw,United States
文摘AIM: To determine hip joint center(HJC) location on hip arthroplasty population comparing predictive and functional approaches with radiographic measurements.METHODS: The distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis was calculated and compared between the three approaches. The localisation error between the predictive and functional approach was compared using the radiographic measurements as the reference. The operated leg was compared to the non-operated leg.RESULTS: A significant difference was found for the distance between the HJC and the mid-pelvis when comparing the predictive and functional method. The functional method leads to fewer errors. A statistical difference was found for the localization error between the predictive and functional method. The functional method is twice more precise.CONCLUSION: Although being more individualized, the functional method improves HJC localization and should be used in three-dimensional gait analysis.
文摘目的:探讨高髋关节中心技术全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)治疗CroweⅡ、Ⅲ型发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of hip,DDH)并重度髋关节炎(hip osteoarthritis,HOA)的临床疗效。方法:2018年1月至2020年1月收治CroweⅡ、Ⅲ型DDH并重度HOA患者74例,37例行解剖型髋关节中心重建为对照组,其中男7例,女30例,年龄42~65(58.40±4.98)岁,身体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)18~29(23.02±2.21)kg·m^(-2)。37例行高髋关节中心技术重建为研究组,其中男5例,女32例,年龄41~65(57.31±5.42)岁,BMI 18~29(23.14±2.07)kg·m^(-2)。患者术前表现髋关节疼痛、功能及关节活动度受限、步态不稳等。比较两组围术期指标,术前及术后3、6、12个月分别评估患者髋关节功能、平衡功能及步态情况,术前及术后12个月测量双下肢长度差、旋转中心水平距离、旋转中心垂直距离、股骨偏心距。结果:术后随访12个月,研究组失访1例,对照组失访2例。研究组手术时间短于对照组,术中出血量少于对照组(P<0.05)。术后3、6个月研究组Harris评分、Berg平衡量表(Berg balance scale,BBS)评分、步速、步频、单步长大于对照组(P<0.05),术后12个月以上指标组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后12个月,研究组旋转中心垂直距离大于对照组(P<0.05),两组双下肢长度差、旋转中心水平距离、股骨偏心距比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组均未出现并发症。结论:两种髋关节中心重建方式应用于DDH并重度HOA患者THA远期效果相当,安全性良好,且高髋关节中心技术重建可缩短手术时间,减少术中出血量,同时在早期恢复患者髋关节功能、平衡功能及步行功能方面具有一定优势。
文摘目的:使用CT联合Mimics软件测量全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)后股骨偏心距(femoral offset,FO)、旋转中心高度(rotation center height,RCH)与双下肢长度差(lower leg length discrepancy,LLD),并探讨THA后FO、RCH与LLD的关系。方法:回顾性分析2020年10月至2022年6月符合标准的40例行单侧THA的患者,其中男21例,女19例;年龄30~81(58.90±14.13)岁;身体质量指数(body mass index,BMI)为17.3~31.5(25.3±3.4)kg·m^(-2);左侧18例,右侧22例。诊断为股骨头坏死30例(FicatⅣ期),髋关节骨性关节炎2例(TünnisⅢ期),发育性髋关节脱位合并终末期骨关节炎2例(CroweⅢ期),股骨颈骨折6例(GardenⅣ期)。术前、术后拍摄骨盆CT三维重建,经Mimics软件处理后建立三维重建模型,在模型上对FO、RCH、LLD进行测量。结果:术后双侧FO差值与LLD呈正相关性(r=0.744,P<0.001);将FO重建组与偏心距未重建组进行卡方检验得出:FO重建组下肢等长率高于FO未重建组(χ^(2)=6.320,P=0.012)。术后双侧RCH差值与LLD呈负相关性(r=-0.877,P<0.001);双侧FO差值及双侧RCH差值与术后LLD之间存在线性关系,且满足线性回归方程:术后LLD=0.038x-0.099y+0.257(x为术后双侧FO差值;y为术后双侧RCH差值;单位为cm),F=77.993,R2=0.808,P=0.009。结论:THA术后LLD随着FO的增大而增大,随着RCH增大而减小;重建FO更易获得下肢等长效果。THA术后双侧FO差值及双侧RCH差值与LLD之间存在线性关系,回归方程可为判断LLD提供一种理论参考。
文摘目的评价内侧突出技术对成人发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of the hip,DDH)患者THA术后外展肌力恢复的影响。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2021年12月于武汉大学人民医院因DDH、股骨颈骨折、股骨头坏死及髋关节骨性关节炎行单侧髋关节置换116例患者,将患者分为DDH组(52例)及非DDH组(64例)。在术前,术后1、4、24及48周进行临床数据采集,具体包括Harris评分、VAS疼痛评分、双侧髋关节外展肌肌力矩比(HAMMR)。通过骨盆正位平片测量髋关节旋转中心内移距离,比较两组间外展肌力矩差异。结果患者随访时间12~18个月,平均随访时间14.3个月,其中DDH组52例患者髋关节Harris评分从术前(39.6±7.9)分改善至术后12个月(85.1±6.2)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。DDH组52例患者髋关节旋转中心内移距离平均(15.5±6.0)mm,最小内移距离8 mm,最大内移距离24.4 mm,其中CroweⅠ型24例,CroweⅡ型19例,CroweⅢ型9例,DDH组患者术后6个月及12个月HAMMR分别为(85.3±7.4)%及(93.9±3.6)%,较术前显著改善(P<0.05),提示患侧外展肌力恢复接近对侧水平(100%)。通过皮尔逊相关性分析,旋转中心内移距离与HAMMR无明显相关性(r=-0.061,P=0.665>0.05)。对DDH组与非DDH组间HAMMR进行独立样本t检验发现,在术后1、5、12个月HAMMR比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论DDH患者行THA术应用内侧突出技术,在有限范围内移旋转中心(内移距离不超过24.4 mm),对术后6个月后髋关节外展肌力的恢复无明显影响,术后髋关节功能及外展肌力得到明显改善。
文摘目的比较全髋关节置换术(total hip arthroplasty,THA)中行髋臼原位重建及高髋关节中心技术治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型发育性髋关节发育不良(developmental dysplasia of the hip,DDH)的临床疗效。方法对2012年8月至2015年12月于我科行THA治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型DDH合并髋关节骨性关节炎(Tonnis Ⅲ期)的37例病例进行回顾性分析,根据髋臼重建方式分组:其中髋臼原位重建组17例,高髋关节中心重建组20例。比较两组病人的手术时间、手术出血量、Harris评分、影像学假体松动率。结果37例病人平均随访41个月(25~63个月)。髋臼原位重建组的手术时间和手术出血量分别为(119±16)min、(413±36)ml,高髋关节中心重建组的手术时间和手术出血量分别为(92±21)min、(389±44)ml,两组间比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=29.561,P=0.021;t=0.682,P=0.231)。两组术后的Harris评分均较术前显著提高,但两组间术前及末次随访的Harris评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。髋臼原位重建组中有2例少量植骨吸收,两组随访未见影像学假体松动。结论高髋关节中心技术的手术时间较髋臼原位重建更短,两种技术治疗Crowe Ⅱ、Ⅲ型DDH的中期临床疗效较好,均可显著恢复病人的髋关节功能。
