The Orthopaedic Research Institute of Queensland (ORIQL), Townsville, Queensland, Australia; North Queensland Knee, Mater Health Services North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
The Orthopaedic Research Institute of Queensland (ORIQL), Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Feb;35(2):443-450. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.064. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
Randomized controlled trials of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have to date demonstrated at least equivalence of KA in terms of clinical outcomes. No trial of bilateral TKA has been conducted so patient preference for one technique over the other is unknown.
Forty-one participants underwent computer-assisted bilateral TKA. The outcome measures were as follows: (1) joint range of motion and functional scores including the KOOS, the KOOS JR, Oxford Knee Score, and the Forgotten Joint Score at a minimum of 2 years; (2) preference and perception of limb symmetry; (3) intraoperative alignment data; (4) release and gap balance data; and (5) postoperative radiographic joint angles.
There were no significant differences with respect to flexion range (P = .970) or functional scores (mean KOOS, P = .941; KOOS JR, P = .685; Oxford Knee Score, P = .578; FJS, P = .542). Significantly more participants who favored one knee preferred their KA TKA (P = .03); however, half of the patients had no preference and the overall numbers were small. Only 3 participants perceived any limb asymmetry (P < .001). More releases were required in the MA group (P = .018). Standing hip-knee-ankle angle means and frequency distributions were similar (P = .097 and P = .097, respectively).
Clinical outcomes were equivalent at 2 years. Significantly more participants preferred their KA joint. Fewer releases were required using a KA technique. Participants were visually insensitive to modest hip-knee-ankle angle asymmetry.
Level 1.
在初次全膝关节置换术(TKA)中,运动学对线(KA)和机械对线(MA)的随机对照试验迄今为止至少证明了 KA 在临床结果方面具有同等效果。尚未进行双侧 TKA 的试验,因此尚不清楚患者对一种技术的偏好是否优于另一种技术。
41 名参与者接受了计算机辅助双侧 TKA。结果测量如下:(1)关节活动度和功能评分,包括 KOOS、KOOS JR、牛津膝关节评分和遗忘关节评分,至少 2 年;(2)对肢体对称性的偏好和感知;(3)术中对线数据;(4)释放和间隙平衡数据;和(5)术后 X 线关节角度。
在屈曲范围方面无显著差异(P=0.970)或功能评分(平均 KOOS,P=0.941;KOOS JR,P=0.685;牛津膝关节评分,P=0.578;FJS,P=0.542)。明显更多偏好一侧膝关节的患者更喜欢他们的 KA TKA(P=0.03);然而,一半的患者没有偏好,而且患者数量较少。只有 3 名患者感知到任何肢体不对称(P<0.001)。MA 组需要更多的释放(P=0.018)。站立髋膝踝角的平均值和频率分布相似(P=0.097 和 P=0.097)。
在 2 年时临床结果相当。明显更多的患者更喜欢他们的 KA 关节。使用 KA 技术需要更少的释放。患者对适度的髋膝踝角不对称视觉不敏感。
1 级。