文摘
The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of the results for 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; group 2 (103 hips) received uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, metal ion test results, and X-ray measurements. Using consecutive groups caused time interval bias, so we required all group 2 patients to be at least 2 years out from surgery; we compared results from 2 years and final follow-up.ResultsPatient groups matched similarly in age, body mass index, and percent female. Despite similar demographics, the uncemented, group 2 cases showed a lower raw failure rate (0% vs 16%; P < .0001), a lower 2-year failure rate (0% vs 7%; P = .04), and a superior 8-year implant survivorship (100% vs 91%; log-rank P = .0028; Wilcoxon P = .0026). In cases that did not fail, patient clinical (P = .05), activity (P = .02), and pain scores (P = .03), as well as acetabular component position (P < .0001), all improved in group 2, suggesting advancements in surgical management. There were no cases of adverse wear-related failure in either group.ConclusionThis study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices.
