Rv. Vonbremenkuhne et al., INDOMETHACIN - SHORT-TERM-THERAPY VS. SIN GLE-LOW-DOSE-RADIATION FOR PROPHYLAXIS OF PERIARTICULAR OSSIFICATIONS (PAO) FOLLOWING TOTAL HIP-ARTHROPLASTY, Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Ihre Grenzgebiete, 135(5), 1997, pp. 422-429
Introduction: With a general incidence of about 40% periarticular ossi
fications (PAO) constitute one of the more frequent complications afte
r total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized therapy - study in
vestigates the prophylactic values of Indomethacin-Short-Term-Therapy
and Single-Dose-Radiatio, respectively. Material and Methods: Consecut
ive patients for elective, cementless THA were randomized; the Indomet
hacin-Group (A, n=31 at the end of the study) was admitted 100 mg Indo
methacin/supp. at the day of operation and 3 x 25 mg orally from posto
perative day 1 to 10. Other NSAID were not given. The Radiatio-group (
B; n=19) was irradiated by a single dose of 6 Gy within postoperative
days 1 to 4; no NSAID were admitted. Follow up tvas at dismissal and a
fter 6 (NU 1) and 12 (NU 2) months. Incidence and severity of PAO and
the clinical objective and subjective results were registered. Results
: Age-and side-distribution as well as the etiologies were comparable
in both groups. All patients took part in NU 1 and 90% in NU 2. There
were no major differences in the incidence of postoperative PAO in bot
h groups. In 68 % (A) and 53 % (B), resp., there were no PAO at dismis
sal and after six months, PAO of Brooker Grade I and II were seen in 3
0 (A) and 47% (B), resp., PAO of Grade III and IV - those having gener
ally clinical relevance - did not occur at all. These results were con
firmed after 12 months. The clinical objective result ameliorated betw
een admission and dismissal by an average of 3,5 points and by another
2 points between dismissal and NU 2. Discussion: The results show tha
t Indomethacin-Short-Term-Therapy as well as Single-Dose-Radiatio with
6 Gy can reliably prevent the occurence of severe PAO. Both therapeut
ic concepts therefore can be employed as prophylaxis in primary endopr
osthetic operations. The choice between the two procedures will then m
ainly be determined by given logistic conditions in the clinic, specif
ic contraindications of the patient and financial considerations.