Hip & pelvis

  • 제23권1호
  • /
  • Pages.25-31
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 2287-3260(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-3279(eISSN)
대한고관절학회 (The Korean Hip Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

시멘트 광택 대퇴 금속주(Cemented Polished Femoral Stem)의 5년 이상 추시 연구

Follow-up Study of the Cemented Polished Femoral Stem for More than Five Years

  • 이주원 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 손원용 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 허창룡 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 윤호현 (서울 보훈병원 정형외과) ;
  • 허영재 (고려대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실)
  • Yi, Ju-Won (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Korea University) ;
  • Shon, Won-Yong (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Korea University) ;
  • Huh, Chang-Yong (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Korea University) ;
  • Yun, Ho-Hyun (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Veterans Hospital) ;
  • Huh, Young-Jae (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Korea University)
  • 발행 : 2011.03.31
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 시멘트 대퇴 금속주(stem)의 표면 처리는 현재 골 시멘트 기법이 크게 발전하였음에도 불구하고 아직 논란 거리로 남아있는 문제이다. 최근의 골 시멘트 기법을 적용한 Versys Heritage 대퇴 주대 의 임상적 추시를 조사하여 시멘트 광택 대퇴 금속주의 결과를 평가하였다. 대상 및 방법: 2000년 10월부터 2003년 8월까지 시멘트 광택 대퇴 금속주를 이용하여 인공 고관절 전치환술을 시행한 82 환자의 95 고관절을 대상으로 하였다. 환자 중 남자는 58명(64 고관절), 여자는 24명(31 고관절)이었으며 수술시 평균 연령은 52.3세(26~74세), 환자의 평균 신체질량지수는 평균 24.2${\pm}$2.75(19.1~29.8), 평균 추시 기간은 82.1개월(64~109개월)이었고, 임상적 결과는 해리스 고관절 지수(Harris hip score)및 대퇴부 동통 유무를 이용하여 평가하였으며 방사선학적 평가에 있어서는 시멘트 등급과 대퇴 스템 주위의 해리 및 대퇴 근위부의 응력방패 현상을 평가하였다. 결과: 술 후 마지막 추시 임상적인 평가에서 해리스 고관절 지수는 수술 전 평균 58.9점(17~83점)에서 최종 추시에서 평균 91.7점(72~100점)으로 향상되었다. 시멘트 A 등급이 45예 (47.3%), B 등급이 48예(50.5%), 그리고 C1 등급이 2예(2.1%), 였다. 추시기간동안 1예의 대퇴 스템에서 definite 이완의 소견이 관찰되었으며, None 등급 65예(68.4%), 1등급 19예(20.0%)의 응력 방패 현상이 발견되었다. 결론: 개선된 골 시멘트 기법을 이용한 광택 Versys Heritage 대퇴 금속주의 인공 고관절 치환술의 최소 5년 이상 추시 결과는 만족스러우나 향후 장기 추시가 필요할 것으로 사료된다.

Purpose: Surface finishing of a cemented femoral stem is a subject of controversy even though the contemporary cementing techniques have improved results. Using the Versys Heritage femoral stem, we evaluated the outcome of using a polished surface. Materials and Methods: The subjects of this study were 95 hip arthroplasties in 82 patients and we used a cemented polished femoral stem with the 3rd generation cement technique and all the surgeries were done between October 2000 and August 2003. There were 58 male patients (64 hips) and 24 female patients (31 hips). The mean age at the time of the index arthroplasty was 52.3 years (26~74 years), and the average body mass index was 24.2${\pm}$2.75 (19.1~29.8). The average follow up period was 80.7 months (64~109 months). All the hips were evaluated clinically by the Harris hip score and the thigh pain, and they were radiologically assessed by the cement grade and the presence of osteolysis around the femoral stem, as well as the presence of stress shielding of the proximal femur. Results: At the final follow up, the Harris hip score for all the patients had improved from preoperative 58.9 (17-83) to post operative 91.7 (72~100). The cement grade was measured using Barrack's method. Of the 95 hips, 45 (47.3%) cases were grade A, 48 (50.5%) cases were grade B and 2 (2.1%) cases were grade C1 at the final follow up. There was 1 case of definite loosening. Stress shielding was noted in 65 (68.4%) cases of the zero grade and 19 (20.0%) cases of the 1st grade. Conclusion: In this study, the cemented polished femoral stem showed excellent results at the mid term with a minimum follow up of 5 years. But a longer-term follow-up study will be needed for further understanding the implications of cemented polished femoral stem.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Barrack RL, Mulroy RD Jr, Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:385-9.
  2. Beckenbaugh RD, Ilstrup DM. Total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:306-13.
  3. Harris WH. Is it advantageous to strengthen the cementmetal interface and use a collar for cemented femoral components of total hip replacements? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;285:67-72.
  4. Harris WH, McCarthy JC Jr, O'Neill DA. Femoral component loosening using contemporary techniques of femoral cement fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982:64:1063-7.
  5. Harris WH, Maloney WJ. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:21-9.
  6. Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:45-55.
  7. Engh CA, Bobyn JD. The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;231:7-28.
  8. Barrack RL. Early failure of modern cemented stems. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:1036-50. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.16498
  9. Crowninshield RD, Jenning JD, Laurent ML, Maloney WJ. Cemented femoral component surface finish mechanics. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1998;355:90-102.
  10. Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Liu SS, et al. Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of thirty years. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:690-5.
  11. Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. 1972. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:4-15.
  12. Halley DK, Glassman AH. Twenty- to twenty-six-year radiographic review in patients 50 years of age or younger with cemented Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18 suppl:79-85.
  13. Kavanagh BF, Wallrichs S, Dewitz M, et al. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. Twenty-year results with cement. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:229-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-5403(94)90076-0
  14. Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJ, Ling RS. Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988;19:477-89.
  15. Issack PS, Botero HG, Hiebert RN, et al. Sixteen-year follow-up of the cemented spectron femoral stem for hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:925-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00336-X
  16. Issack PS, Botero HG, Hiebert RN, et al. Sixteen-year follow-up of the cemented spectron femoral stem for hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:925-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00336-X
  17. Collis DK, Mohler CG. Loosening rates and bone lysis with rough finished and polished stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:113-22.
  18. Collis DK, Mohler CG. Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:586-92.
  19. Datir SP, Wynn-Jones CH. Staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty using rough and smooth surface femoral stems with similar design: 10-year survivorship of 48 cases. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:809-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670510045417
  20. Crowninshield RD, Tolbert JR. Cement strain measurement surrounding loose and well-fixed femoral component stems. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983;17:819-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820170509
  21. Crowninshield RD, Brand RA, Johnston RC, Milroy JC. The effect of femoral stem cross-sectional geometry on cement stresses in total hip reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;146:71-7.
  22. Kaneuji A, Yamada K, Hirosaki K, Takano M, Matsumoto T. Stem subsidence of polished and rough double-taper stems: in vitro mechanical effects on the cement-bone interface. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:270-6. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453670902967265
  23. Crawford RW, Evans M, Ling RS, Murray DW. Fluid flow around model femoral components of differing surface finishes: in vitro investigations. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:589-95. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679908997847
  24. Scheerlinck T, Casteleyn PP. The design features of cemented femoral hip implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1409-18. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17836
  25. Firestone DE, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, et al. Total hip arthroplasty with a cemented, polished, collared femoral stem and a cementless acetabular component. A follow-up study at a minimum of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:126-32. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01214
  26. Jewett BA, Collis DK. Radiographic failure patterns of polished cemented stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:132-6.
  27. Della Valle AG, Zoppi A, Peterson MG, Salati EA. A rough surface finish adversely affects the survivorship of a cemented femoral stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:158-63.
  28. Smith SW, Estok DM 2nd, Harris WH. Total hip arthroplasty with use of second-generation cementing techniques. An eighteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1632-40.
  29. Woolson ST, Milbauer JP, Bobyn JD, Yeu S, Maloney WJ. Fatigue fracture of a forged cobalt-chromium-molybdenum femoral component inserted with cement. A report of ten cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1842-8.
  30. Kawate K, Ohmura T, Hiyoshi N, Natsume Y, Teranishi T, Tamai S. Thin cement mantle and osteolysis with a precoated stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;365:124-9.
  31. Ito H, Matsuno T, Minami A. Pre-coated femoral components in hybrid total hip arthroplasty. Results at 11 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:306-9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B3.15281
  32. Ong A, Wong KL, Lai M, Garino SP, Steinberg ME. Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:786-92.
  33. Madey SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improved techniques of cementing. The results after a minimum of fifteen years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:53-64. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.79B1.6699
  34. Mann KA, Gupta S, Race A, Miller MA, Cleary RJ, Ayers DC. Cement microcracks in thin-mantle regions after in vitro fatigue loading. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:605-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2003.12.080
  35. Ramos A, Simoes JA. The influence of cement mantle thickness and stem geometry on fatigue damage in two different cemented hip femoral prostheses. J Biomech. 2009;42:2602-10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.06.037
  36. Shon WY, Hur CY, Moon JG, Rho YJ, Jung SH. Six to ten year follow-up study of primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty using a precoate stem. J Korean Hip Soc. 2003;15:78-86.
  37. Yates PJ, Burston BJ, Whitley E, Bannister GC. Collarless polished tapered stem: clinical and radiological results at a minimum of ten years' follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:16-22. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01581

피인용 문헌

  1. The Usefulness of Intraoperative Radiography for Prevention of Malalignment of the Cemented Femoral Stem vol.25, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2013.25.2.102
  2. Total Hip Arthroplasty: Past, Present, and Future. What Has Been Achieved? vol.31, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2019.31.4.179