Evaluation of Core Decompression Results of Two Methods Dhs Reamer and Multi-Hole Drills Compared with Each Other and with Other Patients with Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head

Abstract

Avascular necrosis of the femoral head (ANFH) is a progressive disease that results in hip joint dysfunction. Over 20,000
people worldwide get the disease each year. Since there are different studies in this field and there are different therapeutic
methods for treatment of this complication but there is not yet a single opinion about the early treatment method, we
decided to evaluate the core decompression results of two methods؛ DHS Reamer and Multi-Hole Drills Compared with
Each other and with other patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. In this observational cohort study, patients
who underwent core decompression (compared with DHS reamer and Multiple Holes) due to avascular necrosis of femoral
head between 88 and 95 in Rasool Akram hospital were classified into group 1 or 2 according to Ficat criteria, and after
ensuring that the exclusion criteria were not met, they were studied. Clinical signs, visual acuity, Harris Hip score
Questionnaire and radiological scales were used to determine the efficacy of this method, respectively, and all of these were
done at preoperative and 6 months postoperative and long follow-up of at least 3 years and maximum of 6 years (±4.360.89
year) in both types of surgery. After completing and collecting data, the data were analyzed using SPSS 22 software. In
general, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of sex distribution, age, femoral
head involvement, direction of involvement and the stage of disease (P> 0.05). But in terms of pain severity, there was a
significant relationship with VAS criteria in both methods compared to pre-treatment (P_value <0.001) and Both methods
reduced pain, especially in the first 6 months. Based on Harris Hip Score (HHS(, specially in lower stages and kerboul, It
improved the patient's function and, in the long term it reduced the rate of progression or completely stopped progression in
patients with a lower rate of disease severity at lower stages. Although the results of the present study showed that hip
surgery in both follow-up groups had the same results and none had any superiority over the other group, but the rate of
progression and rate of disease progression were lower than the group not receiving treatment (control group).