生物型全髋置换与骨水泥全髋置换在髋关节疾病中的临床疗效对比

巩磊

（陕西省西乡县人民医院骨科，陕西 汉中，723500）

浏览次数：122次 下载次数：333次

摘要：

目的 观察生物型全髋置换及骨水泥全髋置换在髋关节疾病中的临床治疗效果。方法 选择68例行全髋置换患者，根据全髋材料不同分为对照组和观察组，对照组采用骨水泥全髋置换，观察组采用生物型全髋置换。比较两组治疗效果、治疗 后髋关节功能恢复情况及并发症发生情况。结果 观察组患者的术后引流量、术后下床活动时间、扶拐活动时间均显著优于 对照组（P<0.05）；随访6个月、1年的Harris评分显著高于对照组（P<0.05）；并发症发生率显著低于对照组（P<0.05）。结论 生物型全髋置换的临床效果优于骨水泥全髋置换，术后患者髋关节功能恢复良好，并发症少。

关键词：生物型全髋置换；骨水泥全髋置换；Harris 评分

中图分类号：R687.4 文献标志码：A文章编号：2096-1413(2017)06-0083-02

Clinical efficacy comparison of uncemented total hip arthroplasty and bone cement

total hip arthroplasty in hip joint disease
GONG Lei
(Department of Orthopedic, People's Hospital of Xixiang County, Hanzhong 723500, China)

ABSTRACT: Objective To observe clinical effect of uncemented total hip arthroplasty and bone cement total hip arthroplasty in hip joint disease. Methods Sixty-eight cases of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty were selected and divided into control group and observation group according to different total hip materials. The control group accepted bone cement total hip arthroplasty, while the observation group accepted uncemented total hip arthroplasty. The therapeutic effects of the two groups, the recovery of hip function and the incidence of complications after treatment were compared. Results The postoperative drainage volume, the postoperative time of getting out of bed and the time of moving the scaffolding in the observation group were significantly better than those in the control group (P<0.05); the Harris scores when followed up for 6 months and 1 year were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05); the incidence rate of complications were significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion The clinical effect of uncemented total hip arthroplasty is better than that of bone cement total hip arthroplasty. The function of hip joint is good and the complications are few.
KEYWORDS: uncemented total hip arthroplasty; bone cement total hip arthroplasty; Harris score

参考文献：
[1] 王坤正.初次全髋关节置换术选择骨水泥或生物型固定方式的比较[J].中华关节外科杂志:电子版,2012,6(4):1-3.
[2] 李靖扬,刘振峰,乔为民.骨水泥型假体和生物型假体中年全髋关节置换:5年随访比较[J].中国组织工程研究,2015,19(26):4107-4111.
[3] 王勇,孙俊英,蒋建农,等.高龄患者生物型全髋置换术的早期疗效与并发症分析[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2009,24(7):577-579.
[4] 姜宁,杨玉生,朱国兴.中年患者128例生物型全髋置换和骨水泥全髋置换后的随访比较[J].中国组织工程研究,2012,16(17):3069-3072.

[5] 赵传喜,刘文刚,吴淮,等.应用锥形柄股骨假体行生物型全髋置换术的疗效观察[J].现代诊断与治疗,2013,24(9):2133-2134.
[6] 路玉峰,尚希福,胡飞,等.生物型假体全髋置换术后早期负重近期效果[J].临床骨科杂志,2008,11(6):493-496.
[7] 何志勇,狄正林,陶崑,等.全髋表面置换术和传统全髋置换术术后生物力学结构恢复的比较研究[J].临床骨科杂志,2011,14(5):492-495.

[8] 颜滨.中年患者生物型全髋置换和骨水泥全髋置换的效果分析[J]. 中国当代医药,2013,20(1):42-43.