Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis VAMC Section 112E, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):211-9. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2036-2.
Routine patellar resurfacing performed at the time of knee arthroplasty is controversial, with some evidence of utility in both TKA (tricompartmental) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. However, whether one approach results in better implant survival remains unclear.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether (1) routine patellar resurfacing in TKAs resulted in lower cumulative revision rates compared to bicompartmental knee arthroplasties, (2) patella-friendly implants resulted in lower cumulative revision rates than earlier designs, and (3) bicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to TKAs had higher cumulative revision rates than primary TKAs.
From a community-based joint registry, we identified 8135 patients treated with 9530 cemented, all-polyethylene patella TKAs and 627 bicompartmental knee arthroplasties without patellar resurfacing. We compared age, gender, year of index procedure, diagnosis, cruciate status, revision, and revision reason.
TKAs had a lower cumulative revision rate for patella-only revision than bicompartmental knee arthroplasties (0.8% versus 4.8%). Adjusting for age, bicompartmental knee arthroplasties were 6.9 times more likely to undergo patellar revision than TKAs. There was no difference in the cumulative revision rate for patella-only revisions between patella-friendly and earlier designs. The cumulative revision rate for any second revision after a patella-only revision was 12.7% for bicompartmental knee arthroplasties while that for primary TKAs was 6.3%.
Bicompartmental knee arthroplasties had higher revision rates than TKAs. Femoral component design did not influence the cumulative revision rate. Secondary patella resurfacing in a bicompartmental knee arthroplasty carried an increased revision risk compared to resurfacing at the time of index TKA. To reduce the probability of reoperation for patellofemoral problems, our data suggest the patella should be resurfaced at the time of index surgery.
膝关节置换术中常规髌骨表面置换术存在争议,在全膝关节置换术(三部分)和双间室膝关节置换术中均有一定的应用价值。然而,一种方法是否会导致更好的植入物存活率仍不清楚。
问题/目的:我们想知道(1)全膝关节置换术中常规髌骨表面置换术是否比双间室膝关节置换术导致更低的累积翻修率,(2)髌骨友好型植入物是否比早期设计导致更低的累积翻修率,以及(3)翻修为全膝关节置换术的双间室膝关节置换术是否比初次全膝关节置换术的累积翻修率更高。
从一个基于社区的关节登记处,我们确定了 8135 名接受了 9530 例骨水泥固定、全聚乙烯髌骨全膝关节置换术和 627 例未行髌骨表面置换的双间室膝关节置换术的患者。我们比较了年龄、性别、索引手术年份、诊断、交叉韧带状态、翻修和翻修原因。
全膝关节置换术的髌骨单独翻修的累积翻修率低于双间室膝关节置换术(0.8%对 4.8%)。调整年龄后,双间室膝关节置换术进行髌骨翻修的可能性是全膝关节置换术的 6.9 倍。髌骨友好型设计与早期设计之间,髌骨单独翻修的累积翻修率没有差异。髌骨单独翻修后的任何第二次翻修的累积翻修率,双间室膝关节置换术为 12.7%,而初次全膝关节置换术为 6.3%。
双间室膝关节置换术的翻修率高于全膝关节置换术。股骨组件设计不影响累积翻修率。与初次全膝关节置换术时的表面置换相比,在双间室膝关节置换术中进行二次髌骨表面置换会增加翻修风险。为了降低髌股问题再次手术的概率,我们的数据表明髌骨应在初次手术时进行表面置换。