PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
This study aims to answer the question: Which are superior-conventional or short femoral stems?. An Optymis stem was used as a short-femoral stem, and an Accolade II stem was used as a conventional-femoral stem. There were 95 patients in the short femoral stem group (Group 1) and 90 in the conventional stem group (Group 2). The SF-36 Life Quality Score, thigh pain, and the Harris Hip Score were used to evaluate the patients\' clinical outcomes. Pre-operative, immediate post-operative, and final follow-up x-rays were used for radiological evaluation. Stem varus/valgus alignment, hip offset changing, acetabular anteversion/inclination changing, femoral migration, acetabular migration, periarticular ossification, and osteointegration evaluation were assessed for both groups. The mean follow-up time was 5.5 years for Group 1 and 5.2 years for Group 2. No significant difference existed between the two groups in terms of clinical scores (Harris Hip Score, SF-36). Thigh pain was significantly higher in Group 2 (p = 0.0001). As for radiological parameters, Group 1 exhibited more varus position-related results. In terms of angular stability, Group 1 was found to be more unstable than Group 2 (p = 0.0001). The power to reconstruct femoral offset was superior in Group 1. Periarticular ossification was more frequent in Group 2. Femoral osteointegration was denser proximally in Group 1 and distally in Group 2. When mid-term radiological and clinical results of both femoral stems are evaluated, they have no superiority over each other.
摘要：
这项研究旨在回答这个问题：哪个是传统的或短的股骨茎？Optymis茎被用作短股茎，AccoladeII茎被用作常规的股骨茎。短股骨干组（第1组）95例，常规骨干组（第2组）90例。SF-36生活质量评分，大腿疼痛,和Harris髋关节评分用于评估患者的临床结局。术前,术后立即,最后的随访X射线用于放射学评估。茎内翻/外翻对齐，改变臀部偏移,髋臼前倾/倾角改变,股骨迁移,髋臼迁移,关节周围骨化，并对两组进行骨整合评价。第1组的平均随访时间为5.5年，第2组的平均随访时间为5.2年。两组临床评分无显著差异(Harris髋关节评分,SF-36）。第2组的大腿疼痛明显更高（p=0.0001）。至于放射学参数，第1组表现出更多的内翻位置相关结果。在角度稳定性方面，发现组1比组2更不稳定(p=0.0001)。第1组重建股骨偏移的能力更好。第2组关节周围骨化更常见。第1组的股骨骨整合在近端较紧密，第2组的股骨骨整合在远端较紧密。当评估两个股骨干的中期放射学和临床结果时，他们彼此之间没有优势。
