比较双韧带稳定型和韧带保留型全膝关节置换术的疗效。

IF 1.9 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-15 DOI:10.4055/cios22268
Lorena Hernandez, Ittai Shichman, Thomas H Christensen, Joshua C Rozell, Morteza Meftah, Ran Schwarzkopf
{"title":"比较双韧带稳定型和韧带保留型全膝关节置换术的疗效。","authors":"Lorena Hernandez, Ittai Shichman, Thomas H Christensen, Joshua C Rozell, Morteza Meftah, Ran Schwarzkopf","doi":"10.4055/cios22268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Conventional cruciate-retaining (CR) design in TKA has shown previous clinical success with lower complication rates. This study compared the patient-reported outcomes between the BCS and CR TKA designs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study examined patients who underwent primary TKA using a CR or a BCS implant. Patient demographics, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compared between two cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed using independent samples <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant preoperative demographic differences between groups. The CR cohort (n = 756) had significantly higher average KOOS, JR Scores compared to the BCS cohort (n = 652) at 3 months (59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and 2 years (62.6 ± 8.0 vs. 53.8 ± 6.7, <i>p</i> = 0.001) after TKA. Within the cohort, KOOS, JR delta differences were not significant for CR when comparing patient scores 3 months to 1 year after surgery. Meanwhile, the BCS patients did show significant delta improvement (4.1 ± 1.9, <i>p</i> = 0.030) when compared 3 months to 1 year after surgery. One year postoperatively, the BCS cohort (n = 134) showed a significantly higher average FJS score (49.5 ± 31.4, vs. 36.8 ± 28.5, <i>p</i> = 0.028) than the CR cohort (n = 203). Both cohorts displayed a significant difference in delta improvements within their respective cohort when measuring FJS from 3 months to 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CR cohort performed better on average, compared to the BCS cohort in measures of KOOS, JR scores at the 2-year follow-up. The BCS cohort performed marginally better regarding FJS only at 1-year follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":47648,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10825256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Outcomes of Bicruciate-Stabilized and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Lorena Hernandez, Ittai Shichman, Thomas H Christensen, Joshua C Rozell, Morteza Meftah, Ran Schwarzkopf\",\"doi\":\"10.4055/cios22268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Conventional cruciate-retaining (CR) design in TKA has shown previous clinical success with lower complication rates. This study compared the patient-reported outcomes between the BCS and CR TKA designs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study examined patients who underwent primary TKA using a CR or a BCS implant. Patient demographics, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compared between two cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed using independent samples <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant preoperative demographic differences between groups. The CR cohort (n = 756) had significantly higher average KOOS, JR Scores compared to the BCS cohort (n = 652) at 3 months (59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and 2 years (62.6 ± 8.0 vs. 53.8 ± 6.7, <i>p</i> = 0.001) after TKA. Within the cohort, KOOS, JR delta differences were not significant for CR when comparing patient scores 3 months to 1 year after surgery. Meanwhile, the BCS patients did show significant delta improvement (4.1 ± 1.9, <i>p</i> = 0.030) when compared 3 months to 1 year after surgery. One year postoperatively, the BCS cohort (n = 134) showed a significantly higher average FJS score (49.5 ± 31.4, vs. 36.8 ± 28.5, <i>p</i> = 0.028) than the CR cohort (n = 203). Both cohorts displayed a significant difference in delta improvements within their respective cohort when measuring FJS from 3 months to 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CR cohort performed better on average, compared to the BCS cohort in measures of KOOS, JR scores at the 2-year follow-up. The BCS cohort performed marginally better regarding FJS only at 1-year follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10825256/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios22268\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4055/cios22268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:双十字韧带稳定型(BCS)全膝关节置换术(TKA)旨在通过复制双十字韧带的功能来恢复正常的运动学特性。传统的十字韧带固定(CR)设计在 TKA 中取得了临床成功,并发症发生率较低。本研究比较了 BCS 和 CR TKA 设计的患者报告结果:这项回顾性研究对使用 CR 或 BCS 植入物进行初级 TKA 手术的患者进行了检查。比较了两组患者的人口统计学特征、关节置换膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分(KOOS,JR)和遗忘关节评分(FJS)。患者报告的结果采用独立样本 t 检验进行分析:结果:两组患者术前在人口统计学方面无明显差异。在TKA术后3个月(59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9,p < 0.001)和2年(62.6 ± 8.0 vs. 53.8 ± 6.7,p = 0.001),CR队列(n = 756)的平均KOOS、JR评分明显高于BCS队列(n = 652)。在队列、KOOS、JR delta 中,比较术后 3 个月至 1 年的患者评分,CR 的差异并不显著。与此同时,BCS患者在术后3个月至1年的评分比较中确实显示出显著的delta改善(4.1 ± 1.9,p = 0.030)。术后一年,BCS队列(n = 134)的平均FJS评分(49.5 ± 31.4,vs 36.8 ± 28.5,p = 0.028)明显高于CR队列(n = 203)。在测量术后3个月至1年、2年和3年的FJS时,两个队列在各自队列中的Delta改善程度均有显著差异:结论:与BCS队列相比,CR队列在2年随访的KOOS和JR评分方面平均表现更好。BCS队列仅在术后1年的随访中在FJS方面略胜一筹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing Outcomes of Bicruciate-Stabilized and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: Bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Conventional cruciate-retaining (CR) design in TKA has shown previous clinical success with lower complication rates. This study compared the patient-reported outcomes between the BCS and CR TKA designs.

Methods: This retrospective study examined patients who underwent primary TKA using a CR or a BCS implant. Patient demographics, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compared between two cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed using independent samples t-tests.

Results: There were no significant preoperative demographic differences between groups. The CR cohort (n = 756) had significantly higher average KOOS, JR Scores compared to the BCS cohort (n = 652) at 3 months (59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9, p < 0.001) and 2 years (62.6 ± 8.0 vs. 53.8 ± 6.7, p = 0.001) after TKA. Within the cohort, KOOS, JR delta differences were not significant for CR when comparing patient scores 3 months to 1 year after surgery. Meanwhile, the BCS patients did show significant delta improvement (4.1 ± 1.9, p = 0.030) when compared 3 months to 1 year after surgery. One year postoperatively, the BCS cohort (n = 134) showed a significantly higher average FJS score (49.5 ± 31.4, vs. 36.8 ± 28.5, p = 0.028) than the CR cohort (n = 203). Both cohorts displayed a significant difference in delta improvements within their respective cohort when measuring FJS from 3 months to 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after surgery.

Conclusions: The CR cohort performed better on average, compared to the BCS cohort in measures of KOOS, JR scores at the 2-year follow-up. The BCS cohort performed marginally better regarding FJS only at 1-year follow-up.

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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Atraumatic Sport-Related Medial Sesamoid Pain: Conservative Treatment Outcome and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features. Cemented Versus Uncemented Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: National Shoulder Arthroplasty Data from Türkiye. Comparison of Midterm Outcomes between All-Inside Arthroscopic and Open Modified Broström Procedures as Treatment for Chronic Ankle Instability. Does the Nonunion Rate of Atypical Femoral Fractures Differ According to Fracture Site?: A Meta-Analysis. Isolated Polyethylene Insert Exchange for Instability after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparable Survival Rates and Range of Motion and Improved Clinical Scores Regardless of Hyperextension.
×
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