Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021 Jan 6;103(1):44-52. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00279.
Posterior-stabilized and ultracongruent designs are 2 common examples of posterior cruciate ligament-substituting total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses. There is a lack of evidence regarding joint perception differences between ultracongruent and posterior-stabilized TKA. The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative knee stability, function, and joint perception between ultracongruent and posterior-stabilized TKA in the same patients in order to determine whether there was a difference based on design.
This prospective, randomized controlled trial included 50 patients who underwent same-day bilateral TKA utilizing Persona (Zimmer Biomet) posterior-stabilized implants in 1 knee (posterior-stabilized group) and ultracongruent implants in the other knee (ultracongruent group). At 2 years postoperatively, patients were evaluated for knee stability, function, and joint perception. Postoperative static knee anteroposterior stability and femoral rollback were compared. Knee function was evaluated with use of the Knee Society Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Joint perception was compared by evaluating noise generation, side preference, satisfaction, and the Forgotten Joint Score.
The ultracongruent group had more knee anteroposterior laxity (4.5 mm compared with 1.8 mm in the posterior-stabilized group; p < 0.001) and less femoral rollback (4.2 mm compared with 9.0 mm in the posterior-stabilized group; p < 0.001). Knee Society Score and WOMAC scores were not significantly different between groups (all p > 0.05). Although the ultracongruent group showed less noise generation than the posterior-stabilized group (18% compared with 38%, respectively; p = 0.026), there were no differences in side preference, satisfaction, or Forgotten Joint Score (all p > 0.05).
Both groups had similar joint perception 2 years postoperatively, with obvious differences in noise generation and more sagittal laxity with less femoral rollback in the ultracongruent group.
Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
后稳定型和超等高型设计是两种常见的后交叉韧带替代型全膝关节置换术(TKA)假体。目前尚缺乏关于超等高型和后稳定型 TKA 之间关节感知差异的证据。本研究旨在比较同一患者中超等高型和后稳定型 TKA 术后膝关节稳定性、功能和关节感知,以确定设计是否存在差异。
本前瞻性、随机对照试验纳入了 50 例接受同期双侧 TKA 的患者,其中一侧膝关节使用 Persona(Zimmer Biomet)后稳定型假体(后稳定型组),另一侧膝关节使用超等高型假体(超等高型组)。术后 2 年,对患者进行膝关节稳定性、功能和关节感知评估。比较术后膝关节静态前后稳定性和股骨后滚。采用膝关节协会评分和西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)评估膝关节功能。通过评估噪声产生、侧偏、满意度和遗忘关节评分来比较关节感知。
超等高型组膝关节前后松弛度更大(4.5mm 比后稳定型组的 1.8mm;p<0.001),股骨后滚度更小(4.2mm 比后稳定型组的 9.0mm;p<0.001)。两组间膝关节协会评分和 WOMAC 评分无显著差异(均 p>0.05)。尽管超等高型组的噪声产生少于后稳定型组(分别为 18%和 38%;p=0.026),但在侧偏、满意度或遗忘关节评分方面无差异(均 p>0.05)。
两组患者术后 2 年的关节感知相似,但超等高型组的噪声产生明显减少,矢状面松弛度更大,股骨后滚度更小。
治疗学 I 级。详见作者须知,获取完整的证据等级描述。