ANZ journal of surgery · 2014
Thirteen-year outcomes in the Anatomique Benoist Girard II hip prosthesis.
Clinical StudyСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Catanach Michael J M, Sorial Rami M, Eslick Guy D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Stryker Anatomique Benoist Girard (ABG) hip implant system was a commonly used cementless prosthesis in the early 2000s, which fell from favour after several studies emerged implicating the prosthesis in high rates of revision. This retrospective, single-surgeon clinical study examines the fracture rate, revision rate and reasons for revision in 500 consecutive ABG II primary total conventional hip replacements.
METHODS: Follow-up was conducted by audit of patient notes, patient mailout survey, patient phone contact and audit of the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (NJRR) database to find instances of fracture and revision. End points were periprosthetic fracture and revision for any reason.
RESULTS: Follow-up was 1.2-13.8 years with a mean of 6.58 years. Of the 500 hips, 17 (3.4%) had undergone a revision. Of these, 13 were due to periprosthetic fracture. Four further fractures occurred that were not revised. Eight of these periprosthetic fractures occurred within 1 year post-operatively. There were four revisions for recurrent dislocations. Kaplan-Meier survival curve demonstrates a 93.7% survivorship at 6.58 years for revision for any reason. Multivariate analysis showed the only statistically significant factor for increased risk of revision was smaller stem size.
CONCLUSION: Our results were consistent with the literature in that the ABG II system has good medium-term results but is prone to periprosthetic fractures, especially in the early post-operative period. When used as a primary total hip arthroplasty, the ABG II system has an 8-year revision rate of 5.6% compared with the 4.9% of all primary total hip arthroplasties.
METHODS: Follow-up was conducted by audit of patient notes, patient mailout survey, patient phone contact and audit of the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (NJRR) database to find instances of fracture and revision. End points were periprosthetic fracture and revision for any reason.
RESULTS: Follow-up was 1.2-13.8 years with a mean of 6.58 years. Of the 500 hips, 17 (3.4%) had undergone a revision. Of these, 13 were due to periprosthetic fracture. Four further fractures occurred that were not revised. Eight of these periprosthetic fractures occurred within 1 year post-operatively. There were four revisions for recurrent dislocations. Kaplan-Meier survival curve demonstrates a 93.7% survivorship at 6.58 years for revision for any reason. Multivariate analysis showed the only statistically significant factor for increased risk of revision was smaller stem size.
CONCLUSION: Our results were consistent with the literature in that the ABG II system has good medium-term results but is prone to periprosthetic fractures, especially in the early post-operative period. When used as a primary total hip arthroplasty, the ABG II system has an 8-year revision rate of 5.6% compared with the 4.9% of all primary total hip arthroplasties.