T Struik, M P Jansen, R G P Lafeber, F P J G Lafeber, S C Mastbergen
{"title":"两种膝关节牵引装置的临床疗效和机械特性比较及对临床实践的启示","authors":"T Struik, M P Jansen, R G P Lafeber, F P J G Lafeber, S C Mastbergen","doi":"10.1177/19476035231226418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Distraction treatment for severe osteoarthritis below the age of 65 successfully postpones arthroplasty. Most patients have been treated with a general external fixator or a device specifically intended for knee distraction. This study compares clinical efficacy of both devices in retrospect and their mechanical characteristics.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Clinical efficacy 2 years posttreatment was compared using retrospective data from patients with severe knee osteoarthritis treated with knee distraction; 63 with the Dynamic Monotube (Stryker GmbH, Switzerland) and 65 with the KneeReviver (ArthroSave BV, the Netherlands). Changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and function, general well-being (SF-36), cartilage thickness by radiographic joint space widening, and adverse events during treatment were assessed. Axial stiffness of clinically feasible configurations was assessed by bench testing for the Dynamic Monotube triax system and the KneeReviver.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No differences were observed in clinical efficacy, nor in mechanical characteristics and adverse events between the two devices. Although with large variation, both showed a clinically relevant improvement. In mechanical testing, contact between articular surfaces was observed for both devices at physiological loading. Stiffness of applied configurations strongly varied and primarily depended on bone pin length.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients treated with a general intended-use device or a distraction-specific device both experienced clinical and structural efficacy although with significant variation between patients. The latter may be the result of varying mechanical characteristics resulting from differences in clinical configurations of the devices and actual loading. The exact role of full/partial mechanical unloading of the joint during distraction treatment remains unclear.</p>","PeriodicalId":9626,"journal":{"name":"CARTILAGE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520001/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Mechanical Characteristics of Two Knee Distraction Devices With Relevance for Clinical Practice.\",\"authors\":\"T Struik, M P Jansen, R G P Lafeber, F P J G Lafeber, S C Mastbergen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19476035231226418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Distraction treatment for severe osteoarthritis below the age of 65 successfully postpones arthroplasty. Most patients have been treated with a general external fixator or a device specifically intended for knee distraction. This study compares clinical efficacy of both devices in retrospect and their mechanical characteristics.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Clinical efficacy 2 years posttreatment was compared using retrospective data from patients with severe knee osteoarthritis treated with knee distraction; 63 with the Dynamic Monotube (Stryker GmbH, Switzerland) and 65 with the KneeReviver (ArthroSave BV, the Netherlands). Changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and function, general well-being (SF-36), cartilage thickness by radiographic joint space widening, and adverse events during treatment were assessed. Axial stiffness of clinically feasible configurations was assessed by bench testing for the Dynamic Monotube triax system and the KneeReviver.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No differences were observed in clinical efficacy, nor in mechanical characteristics and adverse events between the two devices. Although with large variation, both showed a clinically relevant improvement. In mechanical testing, contact between articular surfaces was observed for both devices at physiological loading. Stiffness of applied configurations strongly varied and primarily depended on bone pin length.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients treated with a general intended-use device or a distraction-specific device both experienced clinical and structural efficacy although with significant variation between patients. The latter may be the result of varying mechanical characteristics resulting from differences in clinical configurations of the devices and actual loading. The exact role of full/partial mechanical unloading of the joint during distraction treatment remains unclear.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CARTILAGE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520001/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CARTILAGE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035231226418\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CARTILAGE","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035231226418","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Mechanical Characteristics of Two Knee Distraction Devices With Relevance for Clinical Practice.
Objective: Distraction treatment for severe osteoarthritis below the age of 65 successfully postpones arthroplasty. Most patients have been treated with a general external fixator or a device specifically intended for knee distraction. This study compares clinical efficacy of both devices in retrospect and their mechanical characteristics.
Design: Clinical efficacy 2 years posttreatment was compared using retrospective data from patients with severe knee osteoarthritis treated with knee distraction; 63 with the Dynamic Monotube (Stryker GmbH, Switzerland) and 65 with the KneeReviver (ArthroSave BV, the Netherlands). Changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and function, general well-being (SF-36), cartilage thickness by radiographic joint space widening, and adverse events during treatment were assessed. Axial stiffness of clinically feasible configurations was assessed by bench testing for the Dynamic Monotube triax system and the KneeReviver.
Results: No differences were observed in clinical efficacy, nor in mechanical characteristics and adverse events between the two devices. Although with large variation, both showed a clinically relevant improvement. In mechanical testing, contact between articular surfaces was observed for both devices at physiological loading. Stiffness of applied configurations strongly varied and primarily depended on bone pin length.
Conclusions: Patients treated with a general intended-use device or a distraction-specific device both experienced clinical and structural efficacy although with significant variation between patients. The latter may be the result of varying mechanical characteristics resulting from differences in clinical configurations of the devices and actual loading. The exact role of full/partial mechanical unloading of the joint during distraction treatment remains unclear.
期刊介绍:
CARTILAGE publishes articles related to the musculoskeletal system with particular attention to cartilage repair, development, function, degeneration, transplantation, and rehabilitation. The journal is a forum for the exchange of ideas for the many types of researchers and clinicians involved in cartilage biology and repair. A primary objective of CARTILAGE is to foster the cross-fertilization of the findings between clinical and basic sciences throughout the various disciplines involved in cartilage repair.
The journal publishes full length original manuscripts on all types of cartilage including articular, nasal, auricular, tracheal/bronchial, and intervertebral disc fibrocartilage. Manuscripts on clinical and laboratory research are welcome. Review articles, editorials, and letters are also encouraged. The ICRS envisages CARTILAGE as a forum for the exchange of knowledge among clinicians, scientists, patients, and researchers.
The International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) is dedicated to promotion, encouragement, and distribution of fundamental and applied research of cartilage in order to permit a better knowledge of function and dysfunction of articular cartilage and its repair.