ARTHROPLASTY
Similar range of motion and function after resurfacing large-head or standard total hip arthroplasty
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(13):1 Acta Orthop. 2013 Jun;84(3):246-53. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.788435. Epub 2013 Mar 2676 patients with primary osteoarthritis and secondary osteoarthritis due to mild dysplasia were randomized to receive either standard total hip arthroplasty (THA), large-head THA, or resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) to examine the differences between these three treatments on long-term clinical function. Results at 2 years indicated that, although incision length and surgical time were significantly higher in the RHA group, there were no significant differences between groups in range of motion, Harris Hip scores (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, UCLA activity scores, step rate or sick leave. There was no clinically relevant difference between groups in quality of life.
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)?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
4/4
Randomization
2/4
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
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
Previous research has found that large-head total hip arthroplasty (THA) or resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) have several advantages when compared to standard THA, namely increased range of motion, decreased patient anxiety and reduced risk of dislocations. In addition, past literature has found that when compared to THA, RHA requires a larger incision, resulting in an immediate disadvantage but no long-term effect on function. However, in order to access the acetabulum, RHA also requires detachment of a section of gluteus maximus and this can cause long-term decreases in function. The present study aimed to compare the effects of standard THA, large-head THA and large-head RHA on long-term patient function.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
How did large-head RHA and THA compare to standard THA with respect to clinical function, when assessed at 2 years, in patients with primary and secondary osteoarthritis?
重要な知見は？
- There was no significant difference between groups in blood loss (p=0.09), decrease in haemoglobin (p=0.50), length of hospital stay (p=0.80), flexion (p>0.05), internal rotation (p>0.05) and external rotation (p>0.05). Surgical time and incision length were significantly higher in the RHA group (p<0.001).
- At 2 years, there was no significant difference in total range of motion between standard THA and large-head THA (p=0.60) or RHA (p=0.50).
- Adduction, when measured at earlier time points, was significantly improved in the RHA group and large-head THA group, compared to standard THA at 8 weeks (p=0.02) and in the RHA group compared to the standard THA group at 6 months (p=0.03). At subsequent time points, no significant difference was observed between groups (p>0.05).
- Although no significant differences observed at the earlier time points, there was a significant reduction in extension in the large-head THA group compared to the two other groups at 2 years (p<0.01). The same trend was observed in abduction in the RHA group (p=0.02 at 2 years in favour of the two THA groups).
- At one year, all groups had received a HHS in the "excellent" category, with no significant differences between groups at 2 years (p>0.05). UCLA activity scores, WOMAC scores, and step rate were also not significantly different between groups at 2 years (p>0.05).
- Quality of life was similar between groups up until the 2-year follow-up, with the large-head THA group obtaining significantly higher scores (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in sick leave between groups (p=0.80).
- Complications included 1 cup displacement with dislocation and 1 suspected infection in the RHA group, 1 pulmonary embolus following a deep vein thrombosis and 1 incidence of pain and raised metal ion levels in the large-head THA group, as well as 3 dislocations in the standard THA group.
最も覚えておくべきことは？
There were no significant differences between standard total hip arthroplasty (THA), large-head THA, or resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) in range of motion, Harris Hip scores (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, UCLA activity scores, step rate or sick leave, when assessed at 2 years. However, surgical time and incision length was significantly higher in the RHA group. Lastly, there was no clinically relevant difference in quality of life at 2 years.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
The results from this study suggest that standard total hip arthroplasty (THA), large-head THA, and resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) are all comparable treatments in the management of primary and secondary osteoarthritis. It is important to note that this study had a small sample size; although certain trends were observed in the data, it did not have enough power to detect any potential differences. Studies using larger sample sizes are necessary to conclusively determine if differences in clinical function exist between these three treatments. Furthermore, the metal ion concentrations due to the metal-on-metal nature of the resurfacing technique, as well as the adverse events associated with these increased concentrations should be considered when choosing a treatment option.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
