Fırat SEYFETTİNOĞLU, Bilal GÜMÜŞ, Cemal KAZIMOĞLU, Hakan ÇİÇEK, Ümit TUHANİOĞLU, Hasan Ulaş OĞUR

Hemiartroplasti sonrası asetabular erozyonun değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı hemiartroplasti sonrası sonrası oluşan asetabular ezozyonun bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) ile değerlendirilmesi ve ilişkili risk faktörlerinin tanımlanması.Gereç ve Yöntem: Ocak 2012 ile Aralık 2013 arasında Femur boyun kırığı nedeniyle hemiartroplasti uygulanan toplam 89 hastadan düzenli takibi yapılabilen 48 hasta bu çalışmaya dahil edildi. Asetabular erozyonu değerlendirmek için bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) kesitleri incelendi. BT görüntüleri Autocad programı ile tarandı. Erozyon miktarı ile hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti, vücut kitle indeksleri (VKİ) ve protez tipleri arasındaki ilişki araştırıldı ve Harris kalça skorları hesaplandı.Bulgular: Kullanılan protez tipine göre asetabular erozyonda anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı. Asetabular erozyon miktarı farklı protez tiplerinde benzer saptandı. Bununla beraber yüksek vücut kitle indeksine sahip hastalarda erozyon anlamlı olarak daha fazla saptandı.Sonuç: Bu çalışma, VKİ'nin asetabuler erozyonla ilişkili belirleyici belirleyici faktör olduğunu göstermiştir. BT hemiartroplasti sonrası asetabular erozyonun değerlendirilmesi için kullanışlı bir görüntüleme metodudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Hemiartroplasti, asetabular erozyon, bilgisayarlı tomografi

Evaluation of acetabular erosion after hemiarthroplasty

PPurpose: The primary aim of this study is tomographyic evaluation of acetabular erosion after hemiarthroplasty and analyse the related risk factors.Materials and Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2013 A total of 89 patients, who were treated with hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture, 48 patients included to this study. Computerized tomography (CT) images were analyzed to evaluate the acetabular erosion. The CT images were scanned with Autocad program. Associations between the amount of erosion identified, sex and age of patients, body mass index (BMI), type of prosthesis, and Harris hip scores were analyzed.Results: There was no significant difference in acetabular erosion with regard to the type of the prosthesis used Quantity of acetabular erosion was similar between different type of prosthesis; however, erosion was significantly high in patients with high BMI. Conclusion: This study showed that BMI is the only determining factor found to relate to acetabular erosion. CT is a useful imaging modality in evaluating acetabular erosion after hemiarthroplasty.

Keywords:

Hemiarthroplasty, Acetabular Erosion, Computerize Tomography,

PDF

___

1. Bhattacharyya T, Koval KJ. Unipolar versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: is there a difference? J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:426-427.
2. Castoldi F, Marmotti A, Fumero S, Dettoni F, Ambretti F. Hemiarthroplasty in intertrochanteric fractures: indications and limits. Minevra Orthop. 2002;52:157-64.
3. Heedbeck CJ, Blomfelt R, Lapidus G, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. Unipolar hemiarthroplasty versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty in the elderly patient with displaced femoral neck fractured, controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2011; 35:1703-11.
4. Trueba DC, Minueza MT, Gil OF, Ponce TV, Garcia VR. Risk factors that have influence on acetabular erosion after a hip hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of subcapital fractures. Acta Ortop Mex. 2007;21:121-7.
5. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1969;51:737-5.
6. Minihane KP; Turner TM, Urban RM, Williams JM Thoar EJ. Effect of hip hemiarthroplasty on articular cartilage and bone in a canine model. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2005;437:157-6.
7. Cruess RL, Kwok DC, Duc PN, Lecavalier MA, Dang GT. The response of articular cartilage to weight-bearing against metal. A study of hemiarthroplasty of the hip in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1984;66:592-7.
8. Kempson GE, Muir H, Pollard C, Tuke M. The tensile properties of the cartilage of human femoral condyles related to the concent of collagen, glycosaminoglycans. Biochim Biophsy Acta. 1973;297:456-72.
9. Wetherell LG, Amis AA, Heatley FW. Measurement of acetabular erosion: te effect of pelvic rotation on common landmarks). J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71:447-51.
10. Gernnari E, Bruzzone M, Bellato E, Rossi R, Tellini A, Castoldi F et al. Reliability of intraoperative landmarks in hip hemiarthroplasty. Minerva Orthop. 2012;65:307-18.
11. Link TM, Berning W, Scherf S, Joosten U, Joist A, Engelke K et al. CT of Metal Implants: Reduction of Artifacts Using an Extended CT Scale Technique. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:165-72.
12. Moon KH, Kang JS, Lee TJ, Lee SH, Choi SW, Woon MH. Degeneration of acetabular articular cartilage to bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Yonsei Med J. 2008;49:719-24.
13. Ayhan E, Kesmezacar H, Karaman Ö, Şahin A, Kır N. Bipolar or unipolar hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture in the geriatric population Balkan Med J. 2013;30:400-5.
14. Calder SJ, Anderson GH, Jagger C, Harper WM, Gregg PJ. Unipolar or bipolar prosthesis for displaced intracapsular hip fracture in octogenarians:a randomised prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:391-4.
15. McGibbon CA, Krebs DE, Trahan CA, Trippel SB ,Mann RW. Cartilage degeneration in relation to repetitive pressure: case study of a unilateral hip hemiarthroplasty patient. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:52-8.
16. Rosenbaum SJ, Bartonicek J, Bartoska R. Acetabular erosion after hip hemiarthroplasty. Clinical and biomechanical study. Rozhl Chir. 2009;88:596-602.