PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF HIP RESURFACING USING INDIVIDUALISED TEMPLATES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (HRA) is a surgical technique that has become more popular in recent years for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis in young patients. For these patients, an HRA offers the advantages of preserving the physiologic anatomy of a patient9s femoral head size and neck offset, which has been theoretically suggested to improve range of motion and muscle function, as well as preserving bone stock for future revision surgeries. Although the improvements in quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) are well-documented, there is a lack of literature documenting the improvements in quality of life in patients undergoing HRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred and four consecutive patients presenting for elective HRA at our institution were recruited between 2004 and 2008 for participation in this study, which was approved by the Ethics Review Board at our institution. The mean age was 51±6y, male:female ratio 79:24 and mean BMI of 29.7±4.4 Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to preoperatively plan each procedure, and intraoperative procedures were performed using individualized templates [Kunz M, Rudan JF, Xenoyannis GL, Ellis RE. Computer assisted hip resurfacing using individualized drill templates. J Arthroplasty 2010;25(4):600–6]. Surgery time was 90±28 min including time for intraoperative verification of templating accuracy. Mobilization with physiotherapy began within 24 hrs of surgery and continued until the patient was discharged, usually within 2–3 days of surgery. Each patient completed the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS), the UCLA activity rating, the SF-36 mental and physical health score and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaires at their preoperative appointment, then at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperative. In addition, radiographs were taken at these appointments to confirm component position, and to check for signs of loosening or heterotopic ossification. Chi-square and t-tests were used for within and between group comparisons on selected variables and across times. RESULTS Only four patients required revision to THA, with one case of avascular necrosis of the femoral head, one femoral neck fracture and two infections. The mean of the preoperative modified Harris Hip Scores was 51±19.7 with a significant improvement in the mean score at 6 months, 1 and 2 years postoperative (p DISCUSSION The computer-assisted surgical procedure allowed excellent reproduction of the patients9 native anatomy, with an average postoperative difference in neck-shaft angle of 8°. We found that template-guided HRA provided reliable improvements in the patients9 self-reported quality of life, based on improvements in the modified HHS, WOMAC, UCLA activity index, and SF-36 physical and mental scores. The stiffness scores did not improve as significantly as did the pain and function scores; we suspect this is partly due to the patients continuing to rely on coping mechanisms they used preoperatively to reduce the range of motion in their hips. Regarding mental component scores, the lower MCS group had worse WOMAC scores preoperatively, as well as worse general physical and physical role subscales of the SF-36 and worse scores in all of the mental component subscales of the SF-36. It is difficult to determine causation because our study was not designed to focus keenly on mental components. However, it is reassuring that these patients with worse mental well-being experienced such significant improvements in their mental well-being with surgical management of their hip symptoms, and surgeons should thus not shy away from performing surgery on patients due to concerns that a patient9s depressive symptoms may indicate a potential for a poorer result. We conclude that template-guided HRA provided significant and reproducible improvements in patient quality of life, irrespective of preoperative mental well-being, making this procedure attractive for carefully selected patients with early-onset hip osteoarthritis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».