Gililland Jeremy M, Gaffney Christian J, Odum Susan M, Fehring Thomas K, Peters Christopher L, Beaver Walter B
University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Salt Lake City, Utah.
OrthoCarolina Hip & Knee Center, Charlotte, North Carolina.
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Sep;29(9 Suppl):224-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.049. Epub 2014 May 24.
Modular revision systems have become standard in revision TKAs. However, the type of stem fixation remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence of failure between cemented and diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKAs. We performed a multicenter retrospective review of 82 revision TKAs performed for aseptic failure. Follow-up averaged 76 and 121 months for the cemented and cementless groups respectively. Re-revision and radiographic failure rates for both femoral and tibial stems were similar between groups. We found similar improvements in knee society scores between the groups. At midterm follow-up, we found no difference in failure rates between the groups. Both types of stem appear to provide reliable fixation and are viable options in revision TKAs.
模块化翻修系统已成为全膝关节置换术(TKA)翻修的标准术式。然而,柄部固定的类型仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较在无菌性TKA翻修中,骨水泥固定柄和骨干嵌入型非骨水泥柄的失败发生率。我们对82例因无菌性失败而进行的TKA翻修术进行了多中心回顾性研究。骨水泥组和非骨水泥组的随访时间分别平均为76个月和121个月。两组股骨柄和胫骨柄的再次翻修率和影像学失败率相似。我们发现两组在膝关节协会评分方面有相似的改善。在中期随访中,我们发现两组之间的失败率没有差异。两种类型的柄似乎都能提供可靠的固定,并且是TKA翻修的可行选择。