Suppr超能文献

使用机器人全膝关节置换术,机械和运动学膝关节对线方法在结果和步态分析方面无差异。

No difference in outcomes and gait analysis between mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods using robotic total knee arthroplasty.

机构信息

Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Bitgoeul Hospital, 80, Deoknamgil, Nam-gu, Gwangju, South Korea.

出版信息

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1142-1147. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5133-x. Epub 2018 Sep 15.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and perform gait analysis during walking to identify differences in kinematic and kinetic parameters between two alignment methods in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Sixty patients were randomly assigned to undergo robotic-assisted TKA using either mechanical (30 patients) or kinematic (30 patients) alignment method. Clinical outcomes including varus and valgus laxities, range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Specific Surgery (HSS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Gait analysis of 3D spatiotemporal, kinetic, and kinematic parameters during walking was then performed for 10 age and gender matched patients of each group to determine differences between the two alignment methods.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration of the mechanical method group was 8.7 (range 8.1-9.4) years and that of the kinematic method group was 8.4 (range 8.0-9.1) years. Clinical outcomes between the two groups showed no significant difference in HSS, WOMAC, ROM, KS pain, or function score at the last follow-up. No significant difference in varus and valgus laxity assessment, mechanical alignment of the lower limb, or perioperative complications was shown between the two groups. In gait analysis, no significant difference in kinematic or kinetic parameters was found except for varus angle (p < 0.05) and mediolateral ground reaction force (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study show that mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods provide comparable clinical and radiological outcomes after robotic total knee arthroplasty with an average follow-up of 8 years. There were no functional difference during walking between the two alignment methods either.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较两种机器人辅助全膝关节置换术(TKA)对线方法的临床结果和步态分析,以确定在运动学和动力学参数方面的差异。

方法

将 60 例患者随机分为采用机械(30 例)或运动学(30 例)对线方法的机器人辅助 TKA 组。评估临床结果包括内外翻松弛度、活动范围(ROM)、美国特种外科医院(HSS)评分、膝关节协会评分(KSS)和西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学(WOMAC)评分,以及影像学结果。然后对每组 10 例年龄和性别匹配的患者进行 3D 时空、动力学和运动学参数的步态分析,以确定两种对线方法之间的差异。

结果

机械方法组的中位随访时间为 8.7 年(范围 8.1-9.4 年),运动学方法组为 8.4 年(范围 8.0-9.1 年)。两组在 HSS、WOMAC、ROM、KS 疼痛或功能评分的最后随访时,临床结果没有显著差异。两组在内外翻松弛度评估、下肢机械对线或围手术期并发症方面也没有显著差异。在步态分析中,除了内翻角度(p<0.05)和内外侧地面反力(p<0.05)外,没有发现运动学或动力学参数有显著差异。

结论

这项研究的结果表明,在平均 8 年的随访中,机械和运动学膝关节对线方法在机器人全膝关节置换术后提供了可比的临床和影像学结果。两种对线方法在行走时也没有功能差异。

证据水平

II 级。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验