Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt UniversityMedical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Apr;26(3):451-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.007. Epub 2010 Mar 23.
In megaprostheses, the tibial component is rarely a source of failure. The evolution of these implants has followed standard arthroplasty trends moving from majority use of all-polyethylene tibias (APT) to high volume use of metal-backed tibial (MBT) components. We report the results of 72 endoprostheses using either MBT (n = 42) or APT (n = 30) implanted between 1994 and 2006. Failures of the implant related to the tibial component were isolated, and 5-year survival of the tibial implant of the MBT cohort was 94%, and for the APT cohort, 87% (P = .39). The difference in tibial component failures between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (Pearson χ(2) = 0.1535, P = .6952). Revision rates for the entire implant and infection rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.
在大型假体中，胫骨部件很少成为失效的原因。这些植入物的发展遵循了标准关节置换术的趋势，从大量使用全聚乙烯胫骨（APT）转变为大量使用金属背衬胫骨（MBT）部件。我们报告了 1994 年至 2006 年间使用 MBT（n=42）或 APT（n=30）植入的 72 个假体的结果。孤立了与胫骨部件相关的植入物失效，MBT 队列的胫骨植入物 5 年生存率为 94%，而 APT 队列为 87%（P=.39）。两组之间胫骨部件失效的差异无统计学意义（Pearson χ(2)=0.1535，P=.6952）。两组之间整个植入物的翻修率和感染率无显著差异。
