牛津部分膝关节微成形术器械后全膝关节置换术的翻修部件的使用和翻修率无差异:一项529例转换的注册研究。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Acta Orthopaedica Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.2340/17453674.2023.15310
Stephan J Van Langeveld, Stein J Janssen, Koen L M Koenraadt, Joost A A M Van den Hout, Liza N Van Steenbergen, Rutger C I Van Geenen
{"title":"牛津部分膝关节微成形术器械后全膝关节置换术的翻修部件的使用和翻修率无差异:一项529例转换的注册研究。","authors":"Stephan J Van Langeveld,&nbsp;Stein J Janssen,&nbsp;Koen L M Koenraadt,&nbsp;Joost A A M Van den Hout,&nbsp;Liza N Van Steenbergen,&nbsp;Rutger C I Van Geenen","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2023.15310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"94 ","pages":"387-392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/90/ActaO-94-15310.PMC10388235.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.\",\"authors\":\"Stephan J Van Langeveld,&nbsp;Stein J Janssen,&nbsp;Koen L M Koenraadt,&nbsp;Joost A A M Van den Hout,&nbsp;Liza N Van Steenbergen,&nbsp;Rutger C I Van Geenen\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/17453674.2023.15310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"387-392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/90/ActaO-94-15310.PMC10388235.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.15310\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.15310","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:在部分膝关节置换术(PKR)中,引入显微成形术器械来改善牛津移动部分膝关节置换术和保留胫骨。因此,这可能会降低修订的复杂性。我们的目的是评估微创成形术失败的全膝关节置换术(TKR)胫骨假体与非微创成形术的pkr假体在使用翻修全膝关节置换术(TKR)胫骨假体方面的差异。患者和方法:使用2007年至2019年期间荷兰关节成形术登记册(LROI)中529例TKR转换(156例Microplasty器械和373例非Microplasty器械pkr)的数据。主要结果是在TKR转换期间使用改良TKR胫骨组件的差异,这是通过单变量逻辑回归分析计算的。次要结局是用Kaplan-Meier和Cox回归分析计算的3年再修订率和风险比。结果:微创成形术置入pkr失败后,29%的患者使用改良型TKR胫骨假体,24%的患者使用非微创成形术置入pkr失败后,使用改良型TKR胫骨假体,优势比为1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0)。微创成形术失败转TKR后的3年再翻修率为8.4% (CI 4.1-17),非微创成形术失败的PKRs的3年再翻修率为11% (CI 7.8-15),风险比为0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7)。结论:与非微创成形术的pkr相比,使用改良胫骨假体转换为TKR或失败后的再翻修率以及3年翻修率均无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.

Background and purpose: Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.

Patients and methods: Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

Results: Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).

Conclusion: There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
期刊最新文献
Acute treatment of elderly patients with acetabular fractures by open reduction, internal fixation, and total hip arthroplasty: a 1-10-year follow-up of 48 patients. Incidence and risk factors of adverse events after distal radius fracture fixation with volar locking plates: retrospective analysis of 2,790 cases. The completeness of national hip and knee replacement registers. Can KOOS-PS be replaced with a simple anchor question in patients after total knee arthroplasty?: an agreement study of 2,478 primary surgeries. Erratum: Regional variation in low-value musculoskeletal surgery: a nationwide study from the Finnish Care Register.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1