ACE Report Cover
The effect of different hydroxyapatite application techniques on femoral stem stability
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り

ARTHROPLASTY

No medium-term advantage of electrochemical deposition of hydroxyapatite in cementless femoral stems

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2016;4(13):8 Acta Orthop. 2016 Feb;87(1):42-7.

50 patients (55 hips) scheduled for primary total hip arthroplasty were randomized to receive implants with hydroxyapatite applied either via electrochemical deposition or plasma-spray. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences exists between methods with respect to bone density loss, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic migration and functional scores when evaluated up to 5 years post-surgery. Results demonstrated that although patients in the plasma-spray group demonstrated significantly less loss in bone mineral density and decreased retroversion rates at certain time-points, the two methods of hydroxyapatite application were deemed to be clinically comparable.


出版資金提供の詳細 +
資金提供:
Industry funded
スポンサー:
Biomet Europe
コンフリクト:
None disclosed

バイアスのリスク

6.5/10

報告基準

17/20

脆弱性指数

N/A

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。

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

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?

Fixation of implants following total hip arthroplasty is critically dependent on successful integration between prosthetic and natural surfaces. As such, osseointegrative techniques have been developed in order to ensure implant stability; this includes the application of naturally occurring and bone formation inducing biomaterial such as hydroxyapatite. Hydroxyapatite is normally applied via plasma spray or by electrochemical deposition for the purpose of reducing aseptic loosening and bone resorption, however, there is a lack of clinical evaluation that directly compares the two methods. Thus, the current study was conducted.

主な研究課題は何ですか?

For patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty, did either hydroxyapatite application accomplished by electrochemical disposition or plasma-spray result in significantly reduced periprosthetic migration and bone resorption, when assessed up to 5 years postoperatively?

研究の特徴 +
人口:
50 patients (55 hips) aged less than 80 years and scheduled for primary total hip arthroplasty were included in this study. Peri-prosthetic stems were implanted by a modified Hardinge approach in addition to a 28-mm CoCr femoral head and a SHP cemented polyethylene cup (Biomet, Warsaw, IN) with bone cement. Electrochemically deposited (BM) or plasma-sprayed (HA) hydroxyapatite was applied to Taperloc cementless stems intraoperatively (Biomet UK Healthcare, Bridgend, UK) (mean age= 63[28-81], M=19/F=31).
介入:
BM group: hydroxyapatite was applied through electrochemical deposition, resulting in a thickness of 5 micrometers and a crystallinity of 70-72% (n=31, 28 completed follow-up).
比較:
HA group: hydroxyapatite was applied through plasma-spray to a thickness of 50 micrometers and a crystallinity of 62% (n=24, 20 completed follow-up).
アウトカム:
The primary outcome measure were the periprosthetic changes in bone mineral density (BMD) when immediate postoperative measurements were compared to successive evaluations. Secondary outcomes measures included stem migration measured by radiostereometric analysis (RSA), aseptic loosening (measured by radiograph), the Harris Hip Score (HHS), and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS).
方法:
RCT: multi-centre
時間:
Bone densitometry (DXA) scans and RSA scans were performed 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months post-surgery. Standard radiographs measuring aseptic loosening were performed up to 5 years post-surgery.

重要な知見は?

  • Bone mineral density (BMD) was reported to have declined in all Gruen zones for all patients, with the majority of this bone loss occurring within the first year. After two years, bone loss ranged from 8-14% in zones 2 to 6 and ~30% in zone 7.
  • The greatest loss in bone remodeling rate was seen in zone 7 (34% for BM group vs. 31% for HA group) and in zone 1 (20% for BM group vs. 25% for HA group).
  • BMD for patients in the BM group decreased by a rate of 0.11%/month (95% CI -0.19 to -0.04), compared to a rate of 0.01%/month (95% CI -0.08 to 0.1) in the HA group; this difference was statistically significant (p=0.04), however, it was determined to be clinically irrelevant.
  • Stem subsidence/migration during the first 3 months occurred at comparable rates when study groups were compared (p=0.6); subsidence rates were minuscule when measured after the 3-month time point, with comparable rates once again demonstrated between study groups (p=0.4).
  • Rates of retroversion were significantly higher in the first three months for patients in the BM group when compared to the HA group (0.17 degrees/month [0.11-0.23] vs. 0.06 degrees/month [-0.01-0.12] respectively, p=0.006); after the 3-month time point, retroversion rates remained stable and were comparable between study groups (p=0.3).
  • HHS and OHS scores were comparable between study groups after 5 postoperative years.
最も覚えておくべきことは?

Bone mineral density loss and retroversion rates in THA patients significantly differed between electrochemical deposition and plasma-spray groups (significance was observed at 3 months for the latter), with less severe rates observed in patients who receive hydroxyapatite application through plasma-spray. However, as all patients and prostheses remained stable throughout the study period the significance was deemed to be clinically insignificant. All other outcomes were comparable when measured at all follow-up points.

それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか?

The results of this study demonstrated that there were no clinically significant differences between the two methods of hydroxyapatite application five years following total hip arthroplasty. While this study demonstrates no differences between hydroxyapatite application techniques, questions still remain regarding the use of hydroxyapatite and if it provides any clinically relevant advantages.

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
今月の無料記事閲覧数が4件に達しました。

週1.99ドルからOrthoEvidenceにアクセスできます。

最新のエビデンスにアクセスしてください。いつでもキャンセルできます。
  • 整形外科における最新のインパクトのあるランダム化比較試験とシステマティックレビューの批判的評価
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeryとのコラボレーション、国際的に著名な外科医へのインタビュー、整形外科ニュースやトピックに関する座談会など、OrthoEvidenceポッドキャストコンテンツへのアクセス
  • 週2回発行されるエビデンスに基づくニュースレター、The Pulseの購読。
Upgrade
Close Dialog
おかえりなさい
パスワードをお忘れですか?
今すぐ無料トライアルを開始

あなたのアカウントは
OrthoEvidenceへの無料アクセスが含まれます。


または
パスワードをお忘れですか?

または
Eメールをご確認ください

入力されたメールアドレスにアカウントが存在する場合、パスワードリセットのメールが送信されます。メールが届かない場合は、迷惑メールフォルダをご確認ください。

その他のサポート サポートチームまでご連絡ください。.

この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

ACEレポートを翻訳

OrthoEvidenceは、多言語でコンテンツにアクセスできるようにするため、第三者の翻訳サービスを利用しています。正確性を確保するためにあらゆる努力をしていますが、翻訳が必ずしも完璧ではない可能性があることにご注意ください。

引用方法 ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. The effect of different hydroxyapatite application techniques on femoral stem stability. OE Journal. 2016;4(13):8. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/the-effect-of-different-hydroxyapatite-application-techniques-on-femoral-stem-stability

引用のコピー
この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

プレミアム会員機能

この機能にアクセスするには、OrthoEvidenceのプレミアムアカウントにログインする必要があります。

共有 ACE Report