后十字韧带保留与后十字韧带替代 TKA 在翻修率或存活率方面无明显差异。

Young-Hoo Kim,Jang-Won Park,Young-Soo Jang,Eun-Jung Kim
{"title":"后十字韧带保留与后十字韧带替代 TKA 在翻修率或存活率方面无明显差异。","authors":"Young-Hoo Kim,Jang-Won Park,Young-Soo Jang,Eun-Jung Kim","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nMany authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThere were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA.\",\"authors\":\"Young-Hoo Kim,Jang-Won Park,Young-Soo Jang,Eun-Jung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/jbjs.24.00007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nMany authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThere were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThe findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景许多学者和多个登记处的数据表明,与使用后十字韧带保留(CR)TKA 相比,使用后十字韧带替代(后稳定 [PS])全膝关节置换术(TKA)会导致更高的翻修风险。本前瞻性、随机、长期研究的目的是比较 PS 和 CR TKA 的临床、影像学和计算机断层扫描(CT)结果、骨溶解发生率、翻修率和存活率。每位患者一侧接受 NexGen CR-Flex 假体,对侧接受 NexGen LPS-Flex 假体。结果在最近的随访中,NexGen CR和LPS-Flex TKA组在膝关节协会膝关节平均评分(分别为93分和92分)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数评分(均为19.1分);加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校活动评分(两者均为6.1分);活动范围(125° ± 6.1°对126° ± 6.5°);X光和CT结果;以及翻修率(6.0%对6.3%)。没有膝关节发生骨溶解。以翻修或无菌性松动为终点,NexGen CR-Flex假体19.5年的估计存活率为94%(95%置信区间[CI],91%至100%),LPS-Flex假体为93.7%(95%置信区间[CI],91%至100%)。NexGen CR-Flex种植体与NexGen LPS-Flex种植体相比没有明显的临床优势。有关证据等级的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
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
No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA.
BACKGROUND Many authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship. METHODS This study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years). RESULTS There were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What's Important: Moving Orthopaedic Patient Care Forward: Tips for Successful Systems Improvement. No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA. Short-Term Complications of Arthroscopic Bristow or Latarjet Procedure with Screw Versus Suture-Button Fixation: A Prospective Study of 308 Consecutive Cases by a Single Surgeon. Do Half of Orthopaedic Surgeons Change Jobs within Their First 2 Years?: An Analysis Using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database. What's Important: Breaking Bread Together, Finding an Extracurricular Pursuit.
×
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