Qiu Gui-xing, Weng Xi-sheng, Zhao Dong, Lin Jin, Jin Jin, Zhao Hong, Zhao Qing
Department of Orthopedics, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2006 Dec 15;44(24):1678-82.
To compare the preliminary effectiveness of mobile-bearing prosthesis and fixed-bearing prosthesis by literature review and observation of cases.
Ninety-eight knees of 94 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by using cemented and PCL-substitute prosthesis were reviewed from February 2003 to October 2004. The diagnosis of all patients were osteoarthritis. All cases were followed up at least one year. Group A (fixed-bearing prosthesis): 30 knees of 29 patients, 4 males, 25 females, 20 DePuy Prosthesis, 10 Centerpulse Prosthesis. Group B (mobile-bearing prosthesis): 68 knees of 65 patients, 11 males, 54 females, 68 Centerpulse Prosthesis. Make sure statistical comparability between 2 groups by HSS, age and gender, respectively. Postoperation 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, all cases were evaluated according to Hss and self-satisfaction.
The grades of Hss in different stage were performed statistical analysis. P value in different stage was 0.414 (6 weeks), 0.108 (3 months), 0.235 (6 months), 0.452 (1 year). There were no significant difference between group A and B in different stage by statistical analysis. In one year after operation, the range of motion in 2 groups, group A: 108 degrees (95 degrees - 118 degrees), group B: 107 degrees (90 degrees - 120 degrees), there were no significant difference by ROM (P > 0.05). At the latest follow-up examination, group A: 13.7% of the patients (4 knee joint) complained mild pain, the percent of the patients' self-satisfaction was 90%; group B: 13.1% of the patients (9 knee joint) complained mild pain, the percent of the patients' self-satisfaction was 88%.
Although it is certain about the effectiveness of preliminary clinical outcomes with mobile-bearing prosthesis, it is still uncertain about the advantage of mobile-bearing prosthesis over fixed-bearing prosthesis. The reason for preferring to the former still need being demonstrated.
通过文献回顾和病例观察比较活动平台假体与固定平台假体的初步疗效。
回顾2003年2月至2004年10月期间94例行全膝关节置换术(TKA)并使用骨水泥型和后交叉韧带替代型假体的患者的98个膝关节。所有患者诊断均为骨关节炎。所有病例均随访至少1年。A组(固定平台假体):29例患者的30个膝关节,男性4例,女性25例,20个DePuy假体,10个Centerpulse假体。B组(活动平台假体):65例患者的68个膝关节,男性11例,女性54例,68个Centerpulse假体。分别通过HSS评分、年龄和性别确保两组之间具有统计学可比性。术后6周、3个月、6个月、1年,所有病例均根据HSS评分和自我满意度进行评估。
对不同阶段的HSS评分进行统计学分析。不同阶段的P值分别为0.414(6周)、0.108(3个月)、0.235(6个月)、0.452(1年)。经统计学分析,A组和B组在不同阶段无显著差异。术后1年,两组的活动范围,A组:108度(95度 - 118度),B组:107度(90度 - 120度),ROM比较无显著差异(P > 0.05)。在最近一次随访检查中,A组:13.7%的患者(4个膝关节)主诉轻度疼痛,患者自我满意度为90%;B组:13.1%的患者(9个膝关节)主诉轻度疼痛,患者自我满意度为88%。
虽然活动平台假体的初步临床疗效已确定,但活动平台假体相对于固定平台假体的优势仍不确定。选择前者的原因仍需进一步论证。