Journals / SSK Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2

Total hip arthroplasty applications for primary arthrosis

Primer artrozlu olgularda total kalça artroplastisi uygulamalarımız

Pages
87–90
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusions: We found no difference between cemented and hybrid total hip arthroplasty systems in patients with primary arthrosis within the intermediate follow up period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of total hip replacement applications and two different prosthesis systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Between 1992 -1999 twenty-eight hips of twenty-four patients who had been operated and followed up properly were enrolled in the study. 15 cases were female and 9 cases were male.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusions: We found no difference between cemented and hybrid total hip arthroplasty systems in patients with primary arthrosis within the intermediate follow up period.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ortopedik işlemler · Artroplasti · replasman

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of total hip replacement applications and two different prosthesis systems. Methods: Between 1992 -1999 twenty-eight hips of twenty-four patients who had been operated and followed up properly were enrolled in the study. 15 cases were female and 9 cases were male. The mean age was 61 years (42 - 73) during operation. Hybrid system was used in 15 hips, cemented system in 13 hips. Clinical evaluation was performed by Harris Hip Scoring System (HHS). Results: The patients were followed up for mean 6.5 years. After the follow-up period, mean HHS was 86.46+5.69 in cemented group, whereas it was 89.69$\pm$4.15 was in hybrid group. There was no significant difference between the groups for HHS. Better results were found in patients less than 75 kgs. Conclusions: We found no difference between cemented and hybrid total hip arthroplasty systems in patients with primary arthrosis within the intermediate follow up period.

Özet

Amaç: Primer koksartroz zemininde total kalça protezi (TKP) uygulanan olguların ve kullanılan sistemlerin kıyaslamalı olarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Yöntem: 1992 -1999 yılları arasında TKP uygulanmış, düzenli izlemi sağlanabilen 15'i kadın, 9'u erkek 24 hastanın 28 kalçası değerlendirildi. 15 kalça eklemine hibrid sistem, 13'ine çimentolu sistem TKP uygulandı. Klinik değerlendirme Harris kalça skorlama sistemine göre (HKS) yapıldı. Bulgular: Ortalama 6.5 yıl izlem sonunda, çimentolu TKP grubunda ortalama HKS 86.46, hibrid grubunda ise 89.69 olarak bulundu. Gruplar arasında HKS bakımından anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p > 0.05). 75 kg'ın altındaki olgularda istatistiksel olarak daha iyi klinik sonuç verdi (p < 0.05). Sonuç: Primer koksartrozlu olgularda çimentolu ya da hibrid total kalça protezi sistemleri arasında orta dönem izlem sonunda belirgin fark saptanmamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞANLI, C., KAYALI, C., AĞUŞ, H. (2003). Total hip arthroplasty applications for primary arthrosis. SSK Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2, 87–90. https://ajindex.com/articles/312868

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Harkess JW. Indications for total hip arthroplaty. In: Canale ST, editor. Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics. Vol 1. 9th ed. Missouri: Mosby Co.; 1998. p. 325-6
  2. McAuley JP, Moore KD, Engh CA. Total hip arthro- plasty with porous-coated prostheses fixed without cement in patients who are sixtyfive years of age or older. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1998;80:1648-55
  3. Johnston RC, Fitzgeralg RH, Harris WH, Müler ME, Sledge CB. Clinical and radiologic evaluation of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1990; 72: 161-8
  4. Harris WH. Total hip replacement in the midle aged patient: Comtemporary cementing for fixation of the femoral component. Orthop Clin North Am 1993; 24: 611-5
  5. De Lee JG, Chamley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1976;121:26-31
  6. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1973;55:1629-32
  7. Callaghan JJ, Forest EE, Olejniczak JP. Chamley total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1998;80:704-14
  8. Dunkey AB, Jonathan DJ, Maureen BL, Smith EJ, Learmonth ID. Cementless acetabular replacement in the young. Clin Orthop 2000;376:149-55
  9. Stauffer RN, Minnesota R. Ten year follow up study of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1982;64:983-90
  10. Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Skutek M, Mikkelsen S, Winemaker M, Robertson D. The Haris design-II total hip replacement fixed with so called second generation sementing techniques. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1998; 80:1775-80
  11. Burt CF, Garvin KL, Otterberg ET, Jardon OM. A femoral component inserted without cement in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1998;80:952-60
  12. Matta JM, Mehne DK, Roffi R. Fractures of the acetabulum. Clin Orthop 1986;205:241-50
  13. Kobayashi S, Takaoka K, Saito N, Hisa K. Factors effecting aseptic failure of fixation after primary Chamley total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1997; 79:1618-27
  14. Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Munuera L. Early and late loosening of the acetabular cup after low friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1992;74:1119-28
  15. Schmalzried TP. Hybrid total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1993;75:608-15
  16. Bloebaum RD, Mihalopoulos NL, Jensen JW, Dorr LD. Postmortem analysis of bone bone ingrowth into porous coated acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1997;79:1013-22
  17. Madey SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Joh