...
首页> 外文期刊>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine >Primary Hip Arthroscopic Surgery With Labral Reconstruction: Is There a Difference Between an Autograft and Allograft?
【24h】

Primary Hip Arthroscopic Surgery With Labral Reconstruction: Is There a Difference Between an Autograft and Allograft?

机译:髋关节重建的主要髋关节镜手术:自体移植和同种异体移植之间有区别吗?

获取原文

摘要

Background: Labral reconstruction has been described as a solution for the irreparable labrum. Initial techniques employed autografts, while more recent procedures have utilized allografts. No study, to our knowledge, has compared graft types. Purpose: To compare outcomes between patients who underwent primary labral reconstruction with a hamstring allograft versus hamstring autograft. Hypothesis: No significant differences in outcomes will be found between patients who underwent primary labral reconstruction with an allograft versus autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from September 2010 to March 2015 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were primary hip arthroscopic surgery with labral reconstruction using either a hamstring allograft (ALLO group) or autograft (AUTO group), with minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery, previous hip conditions, preoperative T?nnis osteoarthritis grade &1, and workers’ compensation claims. Significance was set at P = .05. Results: Twenty-nine patients (29 hips) were included (85.3% follow-up). There were 17 patients (17 hips) in the ALLO group and 12 patients (12 hips) in the AUTO group. All patient-reported outcome scores demonstrated significant improvements at latest follow-up except for the mHHS for the AUTO group ( P = .064). Comparisons between the ALLO and AUTO groups at the preoperative and latest follow-up time points showed no significant differences (preoperative mean [range]: mHHS, 67.5 [33.0-100.0] and 65.8 [29.0-96.0], respectively [ P = .826]; NAHS, 65.6 [26.3-92.5] and 58.5 [35.0-79.0], respectively [ P = .322]; HOS-SSS, 43.7 [12.5-100.0] and 40.1 [19.0-78.0], respectively [ P = .707]) (latest follow-up mean [range]: mHHS, 86.4 [56.0-100.0] and 81.4 [57.0-100.0], respectively [ P = .46]; NAHS, 87.7 [60.0-100.0] and 82.4 [56.3-100.0], respectively [ P = .396]; HOS-SSS, 81.7 [0.0-100.0] and 70.9 [27.8-100.0], respectively [ P = .423]). Conclusion: Primary arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction yielded improvements in patient-reported outcome scores and high patient satisfaction. In this small series, no differences were found in clinical outcomes between hamstring allografts and autografts. Based on these results, hamstring allografts and autografts may be considered comparable graft choices for primary reconstruction. Because of the avoidance of donor site morbidity and the possible increase in patient satisfaction, allografts may be the preferred choice in a surgical setting when they are accessible.
机译:背景:唇重建被描述为解决不可修复的唇的解决方案。最初的技术采用了自体移植,而最近的程序则采用了同种异体移植。据我们所知,没有研究可以比较移植物的类型。目的:比较接受异体肌绳肌腱移植和自体肌ham绳肌腱移植的患者的结局。假设:同种异体移植与自体移植进行原发性唇重建的患者之间没有发现显着差异。研究设计:队列研究;证据等级,3。方法:回顾了2010年9月至2015年3月的数据。纳入标准为使用primary绳肌同种异体移植物(ALLO组)或自体移植物(AUTO组)进行初次髋关节镜手术及人工重建,改良的Harris髋关节评分(mHHS),非非人工髋关节评分至少2年随访评分(NAHS),髋关节成绩评分-特定于运动的子量表(HOS-SSS)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)。排除标准是以前的同侧髋关节手术,以前的髋关节状况,术前Tnnis骨关节炎等级> 1,以及工人的赔偿要求。显着性设定为P = .05。结果:共纳入29例患者(29髋)(随访率85.3%)。 ALLO组有17例患者(17髋),AUTO组有12例患者(12髋)。除AUTO组的mHHS外,所有患者报告的结局评分均在最新随访中显示出显着改善(P = .064)。术前和最近随访时间点的ALLO组和AUTO组之间的比较没有显着差异(术前平均[范围]:mHHS,分别为67.5 [33.0-100.0]和65.8 [29.0-96.0] [P = .826 ]; NAHS,分别为65.6 [26.3-92.5]和58.5 [35.0-79.0] [P = .322]; HOS-SSS,分别为43.7 [12.5-100.0]和40.1 [19.0-78.0] [P = .707 ])(最新的随访平均值[范围]:mHHS,分别为86.4 [56.0-100.0]和81.4 [57.0-100.0] [P = .46]; NAHS,分别为87.7 [60.0-100.0]和82.4 [56.3-100.0]分别为[P = .396]; HOS-SSS,分别为81.7 [0.0-100.0]和70.9 [27.8-100.0] [P = .423])。结论:初次关节镜下髋部唇侧重建术改善了患者报告的结局评分并提高了患者满意度。在这个小系列研究中,绳肌同种异体移植物和自体移植物之间的临床结果没有发现差异。基于这些结果,绳肌同种异体移植物和自体移植物可以被认为是初次重建的可比移植物选择。由于避免了供体部位发病,并且可能增加患者的满意度,因此当可移植时,同种异体移植可能是手术环境中的首选。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号