RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification has been noted around total hip arthoplasty in numerous studies. With hip resurfacing growing in popularity, we have prospectively evaluated the incidence in a cohort undergoing hip resurfacing. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty consecutive hip-resurfacing procedures were prospectively reviewed at a minimum of 2 years follow up to assess the incidence of heterotopic ossification and its effect on function and clinical outcome. We also reviewed the preoperative diagnosis, age, sex and previous surgery. RESULTS: The overall percentage of heterotopic ossification was 58.63%. The incidence of Brooker 1 was 37.27%, Brooker 2 was 13.18% and Brooker 3 was 8.18%. Male osteoarthritis had the highest incidence of heterotopic bone formation (HBF). Three men underwent excision of heterotopic bone, two for pain and stiffness and one for decreased range of movement. Both anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were reviewed for evidence of HBF. In all, 12.7% had no evidence of HBF in the first view but clearly had in the second view. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found no evidence that HBF affected the clinical or functional outcome of the hip resurfacing at a mean of 3 years follow up. However, in light of the high incidence of HBF seen in a yet unproven long-term prosthesis, we conclude that the Cochrane database recommendations with regard to prophylaxis should be implemented.
Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Osificación Heterotópica/etiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Cementación/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Osteoartritis de la Cadera/cirugía , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Two systems exist for describing fingers and phalanges: Naming and Numbering. This can cause confusion for clinicians. We compared the two systems to see if one was better understood. METHODS: Thirty-eight clinicians were asked a questionnaire to identify 11 terms on hand outline drawings. RESULTS: Naming was better understood than Numbering both overall (McNemar's test, p=0.000026) and with just abbreviations (p=0.0017) or full terms (p=0.000074). Radial/ulnar was superior to medial/lateral for laterality (p=0.046). Within the Naming system, the full terms were less ambiguous than abbreviations (p=0.000012). Our study suggests that Naming is better understood than Numbering and that full terms are preferable to abbreviations. To describe laterality, radial and ulnar are less ambiguous that medial and lateral.