Department of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Department of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Int J Surg. 2018 May;53:312-319. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.015. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
The debate over the use of cemented or cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has never stopped since cementless fixation was introduced. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the optimal mode of fixation (full-cementless vs. full-cemented) in TKA.
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases up to July 2017 were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing full-cementless TKA and full-cemented TKA. The primary outcome was implant survivorship. Secondary outcomes included radiological outcomes (maximum total point-motion [MTPM], radiolucent line, rotation degree) and clinical outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] score, Knee Society Score [KSS] score, postoperative range of movement, blood loss and complications).
Seven studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean follow-up was 7.1 years (range from 2 to 16.6 years). There was no difference in implant survivorship (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.01; p = 0.25; I = 0%), MTPM (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.13 mm; 95% CI, -0.69-0.95; p = 0.75; I = 89.3%) and radiolucent line (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.57-3.23; p = 0.48; I = 54%) between the cementless and cemented methods. There was a mean 0.22° more rotation in the full-cementless fixation group (95% CI, 0.13-0.32; p < 0.01; I = 28.5%). There were no significant differences relating to clinical outcomes (WOMAC score, KSS score, postoperative range of movement, blood loss and complications) between the two fixation groups.
Although more overall component rotation is found in full-cementless fixation, the implant survivorship and clinical efficacy are likely similar between full-cementless and full-cemented fixation. However, future RCTs with similar cementless prosthetic coating and longer-term follow-up are still needed to confirm our findings.
自从引入非骨水泥固定以来,关于全膝关节置换术(TKA)中使用骨水泥固定还是非骨水泥固定的争论从未停止过。我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估 TKA 中最佳的固定方式(全骨水泥固定与全非骨水泥固定)。
检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,以确定比较全骨水泥固定 TKA 和全非骨水泥固定 TKA 的随机对照试验(RCT)和准 RCT。主要结局是植入物存活率。次要结局包括影像学结果(最大总点动度[MTPM]、透亮线、旋转度)和临床结局(西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数[WOMAC]评分、膝关节学会评分[KSS]评分、术后活动范围、出血量和并发症)。
本系统评价和荟萃分析共纳入 7 项研究。平均随访时间为 7.1 年(范围 2 至 16.6 年)。在植入物存活率(RR,0.98;95%CI,0.95-1.01;p=0.25;I=0%)、MTPM(加权均数差[WMD],0.13mm;95%CI,-0.69-0.95;p=0.75;I=89.3%)和透亮线(RR,1.36;95%CI,0.57-3.23;p=0.48;I=54%)方面,骨水泥固定组和非骨水泥固定组之间无差异。非骨水泥固定组的旋转角度平均多 0.22°(95%CI,0.13-0.32;p<0.01;I=28.5%)。两组之间在临床结局(WOMAC 评分、KSS 评分、术后活动范围、出血量和并发症)方面无显著差异。
虽然在全非骨水泥固定中发现了更多的整体组件旋转,但在全非骨水泥固定和全骨水泥固定之间,植入物存活率和临床疗效可能相似。然而,仍需要具有类似非骨水泥假体涂层和更长随访时间的未来 RCT 来证实我们的发现。