植入物设计对遗忘关节评分的影响:比较两种当代膝关节设计的回顾性研究。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.52628/90.2.9079
G Peersman, C Struijk, G Delrue, S Goes, B Stuyts
{"title":"植入物设计对遗忘关节评分的影响:比较两种当代膝关节设计的回顾性研究。","authors":"G Peersman, C Struijk, G Delrue, S Goes, B Stuyts","doi":"10.52628/90.2.9079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This retrospective study was designed to assess two fixed bearing total knee design concepts and their clinical outcomes, particularly in Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12). Patients were assessed clinically using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Participants completed an FJS-12 and a short form of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-PS). A total of 216 knees -76 with Genesis II and 150 with Vanguard total knee arthroplasties - were included. Patients in the Vanguard group had significantly better postoperative FJS-12 scores (by 10.1 points, p = 0.019). Differences in KSS subscores also reached the level of statistical significance. KOOS-PS did not differ significantly. Statistically significant differences between the two knee designs on FJS-12, KS and FS assessments were revealed, but overall, these differences may not reach the threshold of clinical significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":"90 2","pages":"205-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of implant design on the Forgotten Joint Score: a retrospective study comparing two contemporary knee designs.\",\"authors\":\"G Peersman, C Struijk, G Delrue, S Goes, B Stuyts\",\"doi\":\"10.52628/90.2.9079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This retrospective study was designed to assess two fixed bearing total knee design concepts and their clinical outcomes, particularly in Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12). Patients were assessed clinically using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Participants completed an FJS-12 and a short form of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-PS). A total of 216 knees -76 with Genesis II and 150 with Vanguard total knee arthroplasties - were included. Patients in the Vanguard group had significantly better postoperative FJS-12 scores (by 10.1 points, p = 0.019). Differences in KSS subscores also reached the level of statistical significance. KOOS-PS did not differ significantly. Statistically significant differences between the two knee designs on FJS-12, KS and FS assessments were revealed, but overall, these differences may not reach the threshold of clinical significance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"volume\":\"90 2\",\"pages\":\"205-209\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.2.9079\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/90.2.9079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项回顾性研究旨在评估两种固定支承全膝关节设计理念及其临床疗效,尤其是FJS-12(Forgotten Joint Score-12)。使用膝关节社会评分(KSS)对患者进行临床评估。受试者完成了 FJS-12 和膝关节损伤与骨关节炎结果评分简表 (KOOS-PS)。共纳入了216个膝关节,其中76个膝关节接受了Genesis II全膝关节置换术,150个膝关节接受了Vanguard全膝关节置换术。Vanguard 组患者的术后 FJS-12 评分明显更高(10.1 分,P = 0.019)。KSS 子评分的差异也达到了统计学意义水平。KOOS-PS 没有显著差异。两种膝关节设计在FJS-12、KS和FS评估上的差异具有统计学意义,但总体而言,这些差异可能达不到临床意义的临界值。
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
Impact of implant design on the Forgotten Joint Score: a retrospective study comparing two contemporary knee designs.

This retrospective study was designed to assess two fixed bearing total knee design concepts and their clinical outcomes, particularly in Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12). Patients were assessed clinically using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Participants completed an FJS-12 and a short form of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-PS). A total of 216 knees -76 with Genesis II and 150 with Vanguard total knee arthroplasties - were included. Patients in the Vanguard group had significantly better postoperative FJS-12 scores (by 10.1 points, p = 0.019). Differences in KSS subscores also reached the level of statistical significance. KOOS-PS did not differ significantly. Statistically significant differences between the two knee designs on FJS-12, KS and FS assessments were revealed, but overall, these differences may not reach the threshold of clinical significance.

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 Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
3D quantitative CT study to assess rotator cuff muscle fatty infiltration. Alkaptonuric Ochronosis: A case-based review. Chronic regional pain syndrome following calcaneal fractures: what causes it and how may Vitamin C aid? Clinical Significance of Arthroscopic Debridement, Trapeziectomy, and Joint Replacement for Basilar Thumb Joint Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Pain Score Improvements. Cost analysis of total knee arthroplasty surgeries in Turkey.
×
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