De Wachter Eva, Vanlauwe Johan, Krause Robert, Bayer-Helms Hans, Ganzer Dirk, Scheerlinck Thierry
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Oberlinklinik, Potsdam, Germany.
Arthroplast Today. 2020 Oct 5;6(4):835-844. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.046. eCollection 2020 Dec.
There is no consensus regarding superiority between gap balancing (GB) and measured resection (MR) techniques to implant total knee arthroplasties. In a multicenter setup, we compared both techniques using the same prosthesis.
We included 262 balanSys posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties from 4 centers: 3 using the MR (n = 162) and one using the GB technique (n = 100), without navigation.
There was no significant difference in the Knee Society Score or visual analog scale pain at 2- and 7-year follow-up. The visual analog scale for satisfaction was significantly better in the MR group at 2 but not at 7 years. We found a significantly higher average valgus in the GB group, but the overall alignment was within 2° of neutral on the full-leg radiographs. There were no significant differences concerning radiolucency and survival.
We found no significant differences in the functional outcome, pain, alignment, or survival, but a tendency toward better function using MR and better survival with GB.
在全膝关节置换术中，间隙平衡（GB）技术和测量截骨（MR）技术哪种更具优势尚无定论。在多中心研究中，我们使用相同的假体对这两种技术进行了比较。
我们纳入了来自4个中心的262例balanSys后稳定型全膝关节置换术：3个中心采用MR技术（n = 162），1个中心采用GB技术（n = 100），均未使用导航。
在2年和7年随访时，膝关节协会评分或视觉模拟评分疼痛方面无显著差异。在2年时，MR组的视觉模拟满意度评分显著更高，但7年时并非如此。我们发现GB组平均外翻角度显著更高，但全腿X线片上的整体对线在中立位2°以内。在透亮区和生存率方面无显著差异。
我们发现功能结果、疼痛、对线或生存率方面无显著差异，但使用MR技术有功能更好的趋势，使用GB技术有生存率更高的趋势。
