FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Orthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 103 grande rue de la croix rousse, 69004, Lyon, France.
Orthopaedic Department, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 May;28(5):1542-1550. doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05565-5. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the treatment of choice for severe osteoarthritis of the knee. Many studies have been performed comparing mobile- and fixed-bearing designs; however, there are insufficient data regarding the patellar position in either system. This study aimed to compare the resultant patellar position with a mobile- versus a fixed-bearing TKA and the influence of both designs on clinical outcomes.
In this prospective randomized study, between 2007 and 2009, 160 TKA patients were assessed; 79 received a mobile-bearing and 81 received a fixed-bearing implant, for medial compartment osteoarthritis. A posteriorly stabilized, HLS Noetos knee prosthesis (Tornier, Saint-Ismier, France) was used in all cases. The only difference between the groups was whether the tibial component incorporated a fixed or mobile bearing. The patella was resurfaced in all cases. The International Knee Society Score (KSS) and the patellar tilt and translation were compared post-operatively. Patellar translation and patellar tilt analyses were subdivided into two subgroups (< 5 mm vs > 5 mm and < 5° vs > 5°).
The KSS was not statistically different between the groups at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (range 5-11 years). Patellar translation and patellar tilt were not statistically different between the groups. When considering the patellar translation subgroup analysis, a significantly increased risk of patellar translation, greater than 5 mm, was found in the mobile-bearing group compared to fixed-bearing group (OR = 2.3; p = 0.048) without generating any meaningful difference in clinical outcomes.
The theoretical advantages of mobile-bearing implants compared to fixed-bearing implants were not demonstrated in this randomized study, at mid-term follow-up. In daily practice, the choice between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing designs should be based on the experience and clinical judgment of the surgeon.
Prospective randomized study, level I.
全膝关节置换术(TKA)是治疗膝关节严重骨关节炎的首选方法。许多研究比较了活动衬垫和固定衬垫设计,但关于两种系统中的髌骨位置数据不足。本研究旨在比较活动衬垫与固定衬垫 TKA 的髌骨位置,并比较两种设计对临床结果的影响。
在这项前瞻性随机研究中,2007 年至 2009 年评估了 160 例 TKA 患者,79 例接受了活动衬垫,81 例接受了固定衬垫植入物,用于治疗内侧间室骨关节炎。所有病例均使用后稳定型 HLS Noetos 膝关节假体(Tornier,Saint-Ismier,法国)。两组唯一的区别在于胫骨组件是否包含固定或活动衬垫。所有病例均行髌骨表面置换。术后比较国际膝关节协会评分(KSS)和髌骨倾斜度和髌骨平移。髌骨平移和髌骨倾斜分析分为两个亚组(<5mm 与>5mm 和<5°与>5°)。
在平均 7.4 年(5-11 年)的随访中,两组 KSS 无统计学差异。两组髌骨平移和髌骨倾斜无统计学差异。考虑髌骨平移亚组分析时,与固定衬垫组相比,活动衬垫组髌骨平移>5mm 的风险显著增加(OR=2.3;p=0.048),但在临床结果方面无明显差异。
在这项随机研究中,在中期随访中,活动衬垫植入物与固定衬垫植入物相比没有显示出理论上的优势。在日常实践中,应根据外科医生的经验和临床判断来选择活动衬垫和固定衬垫设计。
前瞻性随机研究,I 级。