Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Martini Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Acta Orthop. 2022 Feb 14;93:334-340. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.2078.
Current literature provides no conclusive evidence in support of a patellar resurfacing vs. non-resurfacing regime. Therefore, we compared the incidence of secondary patellar resurfacing among hospitals using 3 different primary patellar resurfacing regimes in the Netherlands. Secondarily we identified patient and surgical characteristics associated with primary patellar resurfacing and secondary patella resurfacing following non-resurfaced primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
We used data from 2014-2016 of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Hospitals were divided into rare (0-10%), selective (>10% to 90%), and usually primary patellar resurfacing (>90%) regimes. We performed a logistic regression analysis for associated factors of primary patellar resurfacing in the selective resurfacing subgroup and for secondary patellar resurfacing in the rare resurfacing subgroup.
The rate of primary resurfacing was 5.2% for the rare and 36% for the selective patellar resurfacing regimes, with similar secondary patellar resurfacing (1.1% vs. 0.9%). Predictors for primary patellar resurfacing were being female (OR 1.3) and younger (50-59 years, OR 1.4). The PS prosthesis design had a higher OR (4.1) than the CR design. Younger age (50-59 years, OR 1.5) and PS prosthesis (OR 2.7) were significant predictors of secondary patellar resurfacing. Particular surgical systems have a higher rate of primary and secondary patellar resurfacing.
Low rates of secondary patellar resurfacing in hospitals with a rare resurfacing regime indicate that this regime does not lead to more secondary patellar resurfacing then selective resurfacing. In the Dutch orthopedic community primary and secondary patellar resurfacing is associated with using a posterior stabilizing design, being younger, and using particular TKA systems.
目前的文献没有提供确凿的证据支持髌骨表面置换与非表面置换术式。因此,我们比较了荷兰使用 3 种不同的髌骨表面置换术式的医院中二次髌骨表面置换的发生率。其次,我们确定了与初次非表面置换全膝关节置换术后行初次髌骨表面置换和二次髌骨表面置换相关的患者和手术特征。
我们使用了荷兰关节置换登记处 2014-2016 年的数据。医院被分为罕见(0-10%)、选择性(>10%-90%)和通常进行髌骨表面置换(>90%)的术式。我们对选择性表面置换亚组中初次髌骨表面置换的相关因素和罕见表面置换亚组中二次髌骨表面置换的相关因素进行了逻辑回归分析。
罕见和选择性髌骨表面置换术式的初次髌骨表面置换率分别为 5.2%和 36%,而二次髌骨表面置换率相似(1.1%比 0.9%)。初次髌骨表面置换的预测因素为女性(OR 1.3)和年轻(50-59 岁,OR 1.4)。PS 假体设计的 OR (4.1)高于 CR 设计。年轻(50-59 岁,OR 1.5)和 PS 假体(OR 2.7)是二次髌骨表面置换的显著预测因素。特殊的手术系统初次和二次髌骨表面置换率更高。
在罕见表面置换术式的医院中,二次髌骨表面置换的低发生率表明,该术式并不会比选择性表面置换术式导致更多的二次髌骨表面置换。在荷兰骨科领域,初次和二次髌骨表面置换与使用后稳定型设计、年轻和特定的 TKA 系统有关。