Adam J Miller, Arun C Nadar, Charles M Granade, Langan S Smith, Madhusudhan R Yakkanti, Arthur L Malkani
{"title":"使用相同植入物设计的无骨水泥与有骨水泥全膝关节置换术:平均 5 年随访研究。","authors":"Adam J Miller, Arun C Nadar, Charles M Granade, Langan S Smith, Madhusudhan R Yakkanti, Arthur L Malkani","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1785192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cementless implant use continues to increase primarily due to increased numbers of younger and obese patients opting for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Given the increased use of cementless implants, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm clinical performance of cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate compared with its cemented counterpart of the same system. We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 400 patients undergoing primary TKA that included 200 patients with cementless components matched for age and body mass index (BMI) to 200 patients with cemented implants of the same implant design with a 5-year follow-up. We evaluated clinical results, complications, revisions, and overall survivorship between the cohorts. Statistical analysis was performed using student <i>t</i>-test and chi-square analysis. There was no statistical difference in age (64.3 vs. 64.3 <i>p</i> = 0.81), BMI (34 vs. 33.1 <i>p</i> = 0.19), preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) function (41 vs. 32.3 <i>p</i> = 0.22), and preoperative KSS knee score (39.2 vs. 38.3 <i>p</i> = 0.54) between the cementless and cemented cohorts, respectively. The cementless group had seven revisions, while the cemented group had nine revisions (<i>p</i> = 0.609). The cementless group had one revision due to aseptic loosening versus five in the cemented group (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Postoperative 5-year KSS knee scores were 92.84 versus 91.75 (<i>p</i> = 0.386) and function scores were 81.81 versus 69.65 (<i>p</i> = 0.00004) in the cementless and cemented groups, respectively. The cementless group had survivorship of 96.5% for all-cause revision compared with 95.5% in the cemented group at 5-year follow-up (<i>p</i> = 0.60). Cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate showed excellent midterm results with one case of aseptic loosening at 5-year follow-up and with similar Knee Society outcome scores and survivorship compared with the cemented group. Cementless TKA demonstrated noninferiority to cemented TKA and could be used as an alternative mode of fixation in patients opting for primary TKA. Additional long-term follow-up is needed to determine if cementless TKA can demonstrate improved survivorship over cemented TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":48798,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Knee Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"724-729"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cementless versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the Same Implant Design: A Mean 5-Year Follow-up Study.\",\"authors\":\"Adam J Miller, Arun C Nadar, Charles M Granade, Langan S Smith, Madhusudhan R Yakkanti, Arthur L Malkani\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1785192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cementless implant use continues to increase primarily due to increased numbers of younger and obese patients opting for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Given the increased use of cementless implants, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm clinical performance of cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate compared with its cemented counterpart of the same system. We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 400 patients undergoing primary TKA that included 200 patients with cementless components matched for age and body mass index (BMI) to 200 patients with cemented implants of the same implant design with a 5-year follow-up. We evaluated clinical results, complications, revisions, and overall survivorship between the cohorts. Statistical analysis was performed using student <i>t</i>-test and chi-square analysis. There was no statistical difference in age (64.3 vs. 64.3 <i>p</i> = 0.81), BMI (34 vs. 33.1 <i>p</i> = 0.19), preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) function (41 vs. 32.3 <i>p</i> = 0.22), and preoperative KSS knee score (39.2 vs. 38.3 <i>p</i> = 0.54) between the cementless and cemented cohorts, respectively. The cementless group had seven revisions, while the cemented group had nine revisions (<i>p</i> = 0.609). The cementless group had one revision due to aseptic loosening versus five in the cemented group (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Postoperative 5-year KSS knee scores were 92.84 versus 91.75 (<i>p</i> = 0.386) and function scores were 81.81 versus 69.65 (<i>p</i> = 0.00004) in the cementless and cemented groups, respectively. The cementless group had survivorship of 96.5% for all-cause revision compared with 95.5% in the cemented group at 5-year follow-up (<i>p</i> = 0.60). Cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate showed excellent midterm results with one case of aseptic loosening at 5-year follow-up and with similar Knee Society outcome scores and survivorship compared with the cemented group. Cementless TKA demonstrated noninferiority to cemented TKA and could be used as an alternative mode of fixation in patients opting for primary TKA. Additional long-term follow-up is needed to determine if cementless TKA can demonstrate improved survivorship over cemented TKA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Knee Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"724-729\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Knee Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1785192\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Knee Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1785192","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
无骨水泥植入物的使用不断增加,主要原因是越来越多的年轻和肥胖患者选择进行初级全膝关节置换术(TKA)。鉴于无骨水泥植入物使用的增加,本研究旨在评估使用高多孔胫骨基底板的无骨水泥 TKA 与相同系统的有骨水泥植入物的中期临床表现。我们对 400 名接受初次 TKA 的患者进行了回顾性病例对照研究,其中包括 200 名使用无骨水泥组件的患者,以及 200 名使用相同植入物设计的有骨水泥植入物并随访 5 年的患者。我们对两组患者的临床结果、并发症、翻修率和总体存活率进行了评估。统计分析采用学生 t 检验和卡方分析法。无骨水泥组和有骨水泥组在年龄(64.3 vs. 64.3 p = 0.81)、体重指数(34 vs. 33.1 p = 0.19)、术前膝关节社会评分(KSS)功能(41 vs. 32.3 p = 0.22)和术前 KSS 膝关节评分(39.2 vs. 38.3 p = 0.54)方面分别没有统计学差异。无骨水泥组进行了七次翻修,而有骨水泥组进行了九次翻修(p = 0.609)。无骨水泥组有一次因无菌性松动导致的翻修,而有骨水泥组有五次(p = 0.09)。无骨水泥组和有骨水泥组术后5年KSS膝关节评分分别为92.84分和91.75分(p = 0.386),功能评分分别为81.81分和69.65分(p = 0.00004)。在5年随访中,无骨水泥组的全因翻修存活率为96.5%,而有骨水泥组为95.5%(p = 0.60)。使用高多孔胫骨基底板的无骨水泥 TKA 显示出极佳的中期效果,5 年随访时仅出现一例无菌性松动,与有骨水泥组相比,膝关节协会结果评分和存活率相似。无骨水泥 TKA 与有骨水泥 TKA 相比并无劣势,可作为选择初级 TKA 的患者的替代固定方式。要确定无骨水泥 TKA 与有骨水泥 TKA 相比是否能提高存活率,还需要进行更多的长期随访。
Cementless versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the Same Implant Design: A Mean 5-Year Follow-up Study.
Cementless implant use continues to increase primarily due to increased numbers of younger and obese patients opting for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Given the increased use of cementless implants, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm clinical performance of cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate compared with its cemented counterpart of the same system. We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 400 patients undergoing primary TKA that included 200 patients with cementless components matched for age and body mass index (BMI) to 200 patients with cemented implants of the same implant design with a 5-year follow-up. We evaluated clinical results, complications, revisions, and overall survivorship between the cohorts. Statistical analysis was performed using student t-test and chi-square analysis. There was no statistical difference in age (64.3 vs. 64.3 p = 0.81), BMI (34 vs. 33.1 p = 0.19), preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) function (41 vs. 32.3 p = 0.22), and preoperative KSS knee score (39.2 vs. 38.3 p = 0.54) between the cementless and cemented cohorts, respectively. The cementless group had seven revisions, while the cemented group had nine revisions (p = 0.609). The cementless group had one revision due to aseptic loosening versus five in the cemented group (p = 0.09). Postoperative 5-year KSS knee scores were 92.84 versus 91.75 (p = 0.386) and function scores were 81.81 versus 69.65 (p = 0.00004) in the cementless and cemented groups, respectively. The cementless group had survivorship of 96.5% for all-cause revision compared with 95.5% in the cemented group at 5-year follow-up (p = 0.60). Cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate showed excellent midterm results with one case of aseptic loosening at 5-year follow-up and with similar Knee Society outcome scores and survivorship compared with the cemented group. Cementless TKA demonstrated noninferiority to cemented TKA and could be used as an alternative mode of fixation in patients opting for primary TKA. Additional long-term follow-up is needed to determine if cementless TKA can demonstrate improved survivorship over cemented TKA.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Knee Surgery covers a range of issues relating to the orthopaedic techniques of arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and reconstructive surgery of the knee joint. In addition to original peer-review articles, this periodical provides details on emerging surgical techniques, as well as reviews and special focus sections. Topics of interest include cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction, bone grafting, cartilage regeneration, and magnetic resonance imaging.