Xu X P, Guo P C, Gao H S, Sun Y, Wang Y Z, Zhang H N
Department of Joint Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, China.
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Jan 21;100(3):187-191. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2020.03.006.
To compare the clinical outcome of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retention type and PCL substituting type using Advance(®) Medial Pivot (AMP) inner-axis knee prosthesis. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the cases of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with AMP prosthesis in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2011 to September 2016. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), American Knee Society Knee Score (KSS) clinical scores, KSS functional scores and knee-joint range of motion (ROM) before and after TKA, and Forgotten Joint Scores (FJS) after TKA were collected. The matching group was obtained by 1∶1 propensity score matching (PSM). Complete scoring data were obtained in 47 knees of CR group and 1 059 knees of CS group, there were statistical differences in age, sex, body mass index, preoperative WOMAC score, preoperative KSS function score and ROM between the two groups (all 0.05), except preoperative KSS clinical score (25±4 and 24±7, respectively, 0.82, 0.41). With the PSM matching, 37 knees in CR group and 37 knees in CS group were obtained. No significant differences in preoperative indexes were found between the matching groups (all 0.05). The WOMAC, KSS clinical scores, KSS functional scores and ROM after TKA in each matching group were all much better than those before TKA (all 0.05); no statistical differences existed in WOMAC, KSS clinical scores, KSS functional scores, ROM and FJS after TKA between the matching groups (all 0.05). One PCL injury was found in CR matching group after TKA. Incidence of complications in the CR matching group (8.1%) was higher than that in the CS matching group (2.7%), but there was no statistical difference (χ(2)=1.04, 0.31). When using AMP prosthesis, both CR insert and CS insert can obtain good clinical results in TKA. The potential risk of PCL injury and other complications after CR TKA makes it necessary for surgeons to carefully select an appropriate type of prosthesis.
比较使用Advance(®)内侧旋转(AMP)内轴膝关节假体的后交叉韧带(PCL)保留型和PCL替代型的临床疗效。对2011年1月至2016年9月在青岛大学附属医院行AMP假体全膝关节置换术(TKA)的病例进行回顾性分析。收集TKA前后的西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)、美国膝关节协会膝关节评分(KSS)临床评分、KSS功能评分、膝关节活动范围(ROM)以及TKA后的遗忘关节评分(FJS)。通过1∶1倾向评分匹配(PSM)获得匹配组。CR组47例膝关节和CS组1059例膝关节获得完整评分数据,两组在年龄、性别、体重指数、术前WOMAC评分、术前KSS功能评分和ROM方面存在统计学差异(均P<0.05),术前KSS临床评分除外(分别为25±4和24±7,P = 0.82,0.41)。经PSM匹配后,CR组37例膝关节和CS组37例膝关节。匹配组术前指标无显著差异(均P>0.05)。各匹配组TKA后的WOMAC、KSS临床评分、KSS功能评分和ROM均明显优于TKA前(均P<0.05);匹配组TKA后的WOMAC、KSS临床评分、KSS功能评分、ROM和FJS无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。CR匹配组TKA后发现1例PCL损伤。CR匹配组并发症发生率(8.1%)高于CS匹配组(2.7%),但无统计学差异(χ(2)=1.04,P = 0.31)。使用AMP假体时,CR衬垫和CS衬垫在TKA中均能获得良好的临床效果。CR TKA后PCL损伤及其他并发症的潜在风险使得外科医生有必要仔细选择合适的假体类型。