Electrochemical versus plasma-coated femoral implant in total hip arthroplasty .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(12):47 Acta Orthop. 2011 Feb;82(1):13-950 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were randomized to receive either plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite (HA) or electrochemically deposited hydroxyapatite (Bonemaster, BM),as a coating for the fixation of uncemented femoral stems, in order to compare the safety and efficacy of the two coatings. At a follow-up of two years, the two groups were similar in regards to their clinical outcomes.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Sí = 1
Incierto = 0,5
No relevante = 0
No = 0
La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.
2/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
Alternative bone coatings, such as Bonemaster (BM), provide potential advantages in terms of remodelling and transporting of bone-active substances. The trial was necessary to investigate whether the use of this alternative is safe for conventional clinical use.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
In patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty for non-inflammatory osteoarthritis, does electrochemically deposited Bonemaster provide non-inferior results in terms of safety, as compared with a conventional femoral implant utilizing plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite?
- The null hypothesis was rejected for BMD in Gruen zone 1 (p = .01); bone loss was less in the BM group. The null hypothesis was accepted for all other regions (p > .05)
- No statistically significant results were obtained with respect to femoral migration or rotation following implantation (p > .05)
- There were no significant differences in the Harris Hip Scores at two year follow-up between the groups (p > .05)
- There were no significant differences in the oxford hip score between the two groups (p > .05)
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
Functional scores, migration, and rotation of the femoral head following total hip arthroplasty were not significantly different. Potential benefits in terms of bone mineral density were identified in favor of the Bonemaster group.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
The results suggest that Bonemaster is clinically non-inferior to conventional plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite and is a viable alternative. Long term follow-up is necessary to investigate other potential benefits of electrochemical deposition and whether or not long-term fixation is achieved. The small sample size of the study should be taken into account.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
