Knee Research Australia, 8-10 Carrara Street, Benowa, QLD, 4217, Australia.
Gold Coast Orthopaedic Research and Education Alliance, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 May;27(5):1418-1426. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5115-z. Epub 2018 Aug 20.
Decades of innovations in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design have led to large number of possible prosthesis combinations in regards fixation, posterior stability, bearing mobility, bearing surface, and patella resurfacing, each of which can alter the revision risk. The accumulative effect when the lowest risk combination in each design category, or "Optimum Prosthesis Combination" (OPC) is utilized remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to first, identify the OPC and second, to compare the revision risk of a cohort who received the OPC to a cohort who received an Alternative Prosthesis Combination (APC).
National registry revision risk data for primary TKA for osteoarthritis were obtained from September 1999 to December 2015 for two patient cohorts, those receiving an OPC and those receiving an APC. OPC was defined as TKA with the lowest revision risk option for five primary TKA design categories; fixation, posterior stability, bearing mobility, bearing surface, and patella resurfacing, while APC had one or more higher risk options.
Of the 482,373 included TKA, 42,008 (8.7%) were in the OPC cohort, who received a minimally stabilized, fixed bearing TKA with cross-linked polyethylene with patella resurfacing. Both cohorts had similar demographics. At 10 years, the OPC cohort had a Cumulative Percent Revision of 2.4% (95% CI 2.1, 2.8) compared to 5.5% (95% CI 5.4, 5.6) for the APC cohort. For all patients, revision risk of the APC cohort was higher at all times [151% greater at ≥ 3 years (p < 0.001)]. Loosening/lysis was the most common cause of revision in the ACP cohort (1.1%), while it was the second most common cause in the OPC cohort (0.3%). The increased risk was apparent in all age and gender subgroups, with the highest risk increase seen in males ≥ 65 years.
Patients receiving the lowest risk prosthesis design combination or Optimum Prosthesis Combination TKA had a 60% lower revision risk, with similar demographics to the Alternative Prosthesis Combination TKA.
III.
几十年来,全膝关节置换术(TKA)设计的创新导致了固定、后稳定性、轴承活动度、轴承表面和髌骨再成形等方面大量可能的假体组合,每种组合都可以改变翻修风险。当在每个设计类别中使用风险最低的组合,即“最佳假体组合”(OPC)时,累积效应仍然未知。本分析的目的是首先确定 OPC,其次比较接受 OPC 和接受替代假体组合(APC)的患者队列的翻修风险。
从 1999 年 9 月至 2015 年 12 月,我们从国家登记处获得了原发性骨关节炎 TKA 的翻修风险数据,该数据适用于两个患者队列,一组接受 OPC,另一组接受 APC。OPC 定义为在五个主要 TKA 设计类别中具有最低翻修风险的 TKA;固定、后稳定性、轴承活动度、轴承表面和髌骨再成形,而 APC 有一个或多个更高风险的选项。
在纳入的 482373 例 TKA 中,42008 例(8.7%)在 OPC 队列中,他们接受了最小稳定、固定轴承 TKA,采用交联聚乙烯和髌骨再成形。两个队列的人口统计学特征相似。在 10 年时,OPC 队列的累积修正百分比为 2.4%(95%CI 2.1,2.8),而 APC 队列为 5.5%(95%CI 5.4,5.6)。对于所有患者,APC 队列的翻修风险在所有时间都更高[3 年以上时增加 151%(p<0.001)]。松动/溶解是 APC 队列翻修的最常见原因(1.1%),而在 OPC 队列中它是第二常见原因(0.3%)。这种风险增加在所有年龄和性别亚组中都很明显,在≥65 岁的男性中风险增加最高。
接受最低风险假体设计组合或最佳假体组合 TKA 的患者翻修风险降低 60%,与替代假体组合 TKA 的人口统计学特征相似。
III 级。