Acta orthopaedica · 2015
Excellent long-term results of the Müller acetabular reinforcement ring in primary total hip arthroplasty: A prospective study on radiology and survival of 321 hips with a mean follow-up of 11 years.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Sirka Aurimas, Clauss Martin, Tarasevicius Sarunas, Wingstrand Hans, Stucinskas Justinas, Robertsson Otto, Ochsner Peter Emil, Ilchmann Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The original Müller acetabular reinforcement ring (ARR) shows favorable medium-term results for acetabular reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty, where it is used when the acetabular bone stock is deficient. However, there are no data regarding long-term survival of the device. We therefore investigated long-term survival and analyzed radiological modes of failure.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1984 and 2002, 321 consecutive primary arthroplasties using an ARR were performed in 291 patients. The mean follow-up time was 11 (0-25) years, and 24 hips were lost to follow-up. For survival analysis, we investigated 321 hips and the end of the follow-up was the date of revision, date of death, or the last patient contact date with implant still in situ. Radiological assessment was performed for 160 hips with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up and with radiographs of sufficient quality. It included evaluation of osteolysis, migration, and loosening.
RESULTS: 12 ARR THAs were revised: 1 isolated ARR revision for aseptic loosening, 4 revisions of the ARR and the stem for aseptic loosening, 6 for infection, and 1 for recurrent dislocation. The cumulative revision rate for all components, for any reason, at 20 years was 15% (95% CI: 10-22), while for the ARR only it was 7% (95% CI: 4-12) for any reason and 3.4% (95% CI: 1-9) for aseptic loosening. 21 (13%) of 160 ARR THAs examined had radiological changes: 7 had osteolysis but were not loose, and 14 were radiologically loose but were not painful and not revised.
INTERPRETATION: Our data suggest that the long-term survival of the ARR is excellent.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1984 and 2002, 321 consecutive primary arthroplasties using an ARR were performed in 291 patients. The mean follow-up time was 11 (0-25) years, and 24 hips were lost to follow-up. For survival analysis, we investigated 321 hips and the end of the follow-up was the date of revision, date of death, or the last patient contact date with implant still in situ. Radiological assessment was performed for 160 hips with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up and with radiographs of sufficient quality. It included evaluation of osteolysis, migration, and loosening.
RESULTS: 12 ARR THAs were revised: 1 isolated ARR revision for aseptic loosening, 4 revisions of the ARR and the stem for aseptic loosening, 6 for infection, and 1 for recurrent dislocation. The cumulative revision rate for all components, for any reason, at 20 years was 15% (95% CI: 10-22), while for the ARR only it was 7% (95% CI: 4-12) for any reason and 3.4% (95% CI: 1-9) for aseptic loosening. 21 (13%) of 160 ARR THAs examined had radiological changes: 7 had osteolysis but were not loose, and 14 were radiologically loose but were not painful and not revised.
INTERPRETATION: Our data suggest that the long-term survival of the ARR is excellent.