• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

分期双室膝关节置换术在改善功能方面更有优势,但中期生存率与全膝关节翻修术相当,用于治疗全膝关节置换术后进展性骨关节炎。

Staged BiCompartmental Knee Arthroplasty has Greater Functional Improvement, but Equivalent Midterm Survivorship, as Revision TKA for Progressive Osteoarthritis After Partial Knee Arthroplasty.

机构信息

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.

Joint Replacement Department, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jul;37(7):1260-1265. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.084. Epub 2022 Feb 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.084
PMID:35227809
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Progressive arthritis in the unresurfaced compartments of the knee is one failure mode after partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). While progressive arthritis after PKA is typically treated with revision to TKA (rTKA), staged bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (sBiKA) -the addition of another PKA - is an alternative. This study compared outcomes of sBiKA and rTKA for progressive arthritis after PKA.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study of non-consecutive cases at four institutions were performed in patients with an intact PKA, without loosening or wear, who underwent sBiKA (n = 27) or rTKA (n = 30), for progressive osteoarthritis. Outcomes studied were new Knee Society Function and Objective Scores (KSSF, KSSO), KOOS, Jr., ROM, operative times, length of stay, complication rates and the need for reoperations.

RESULTS

Mean time to conversion was 7.4 ± 6 years for sBiKA and 9.7 ± 8 for rTKA, P = .178. Patient demographics and pre-operative outcomes were similar among cohorts. At an average of 5.7 ± 3 (sBiKA) and 3.2 ± 2 years (rTKA), KOOS, Jr. significantly improved, P < .001, by an equivalent amount. Post-operative KSSO and KSSF were significantly higher in the sBiKA cohort, respectively, (90.4 ± 10 vs 72.1 ± 20, P < .001) and (80.3 ± 18 vs 67.1 ± 19, P = .011). sBiKA patients had significantly greater improvement in KSSO (30.7 ± 33 vs 5.2 ± 18, P = .003). One sBiKA patient underwent reoperation for continued pain.

CONCLUSION

SBiKA has equivalent survivorship, but greater improvement in functional outcomes as rTKA at short to midterm follow-up. Given the shorter operative times and length of stay, sBiKA is a safe and cost-effective alternative to rTKA for progressive osteoarthritis following PKA. Nevertheless, further follow-up is necessary to determine whether sBiKA is a durable option.

摘要

背景

膝关节未覆盖区域的进行性关节炎是膝关节部分置换术后(PKA)的一种失败模式。虽然 PKA 后的进行性关节炎通常采用翻修全膝关节置换术(rTKA)治疗,但分期双间室膝关节置换术(sBiKA)-即增加另一个 PKA-是一种替代方案。本研究比较了 sBiKA 和 rTKA 治疗 PKA 后进行性关节炎的疗效。

方法

对四家机构的非连续病例进行回顾性比较研究,纳入标准为:膝关节 PKA 完整,无松动或磨损,行 sBiKA(n=27)或 rTKA(n=30)治疗进行性骨关节炎。研究的结果是新的膝关节学会功能和客观评分(KSSF、KSSO)、KOOS Jr.、ROM、手术时间、住院时间、并发症发生率和再手术率。

结果

sBiKA 的平均转换时间为 7.4±6 年,rTKA 为 9.7±8 年,P=0.178。两组患者的人口统计学和术前结果相似。在平均 5.7±3 年(sBiKA)和 3.2±2 年(rTKA)时,KOOS Jr.显著改善,P<0.001,改善程度相同。sBiKA 组术后 KSSO 和 KSSF 分别显著升高(90.4±10 与 72.1±20,P<0.001)和(80.3±18 与 67.1±19,P=0.011)。sBiKA 患者的 KSSO 改善程度显著更大(30.7±33 与 5.2±18,P=0.003)。1 例 sBiKA 患者因持续性疼痛再次手术。

结论

sBiKA 在短期至中期随访中具有同等的生存率,但在功能结果方面的改善优于 rTKA。鉴于手术时间和住院时间更短,sBiKA 是 PKA 后进行性骨关节炎 rTKA 的一种安全且具有成本效益的替代方案。然而,需要进一步随访以确定 sBiKA 是否是一种持久的选择。

相似文献

1
Staged BiCompartmental Knee Arthroplasty has Greater Functional Improvement, but Equivalent Midterm Survivorship, as Revision TKA for Progressive Osteoarthritis After Partial Knee Arthroplasty.分期双室膝关节置换术在改善功能方面更有优势,但中期生存率与全膝关节翻修术相当,用于治疗全膝关节置换术后进展性骨关节炎。
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jul;37(7):1260-1265. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.084. Epub 2022 Feb 26.
2
Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty.机器人辅助部分膝关节置换术的中期存活率和患者报告的结果。
Bone Joint J. 2020 Jan;102-B(1):108-116. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B1.BJJ-2019-0510.R1.
3
Comparison of Aseptic Partial- and Full-Component Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.全膝关节置换术与部分膝关节置换术翻修的无菌比较。
J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jul;38(7 Suppl 2):S360-S368. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.09.025. Epub 2022 Nov 8.
4
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs Total Knee Arthroplasty for Medial Compartment Arthritis in Patients Older Than 75 Years: Comparable Reoperation, Revision, and Complication Rates.75岁以上患者内侧间室关节炎的单髁膝关节置换术与全膝关节置换术:再手术、翻修及并发症发生率相当
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jun;32(6):1792-1797. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.020. Epub 2017 Jan 24.
5
Minimum 5-Year Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship for a Single Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty System Using Hybrid Fixation and Press-Fit Stems.采用混合固定和压配式柄的单重全膝关节翻修系统的至少 5 年临床结果和生存率。
J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jun;38(6S):S297-S301. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.03.083. Epub 2023 Mar 31.
6
Survival of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 5 to 23 years.双间室膝关节置换术 5 年至 23 年的存活率。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):64-72. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1018-0. Epub 2009 Aug 8.
7
Minimum two-year outcomes of modular bicompartmental knee arthroplasty.模块化双髁膝关节置换术的至少两年随访结果
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):75-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.044. Epub 2013 Jun 2.
8
Prospective randomised trial comparing unlinked, modular bicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: a five years follow-up.比较非连接式、模块化双间室膝关节置换术与全膝关节置换术的前瞻性随机试验:五年随访
Knee. 2015 Sep;22(4):321-7. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2015.04.007. Epub 2015 May 6.
9
Periprosthetic Infection: Major Cause of Early Failure of Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.人工关节周围感染:初次及翻修全膝关节置换早期失败的主要原因
J Knee Surg. 2019 Oct;32(10):941-946. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1672203. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
10
Pre-operative patella alta does not affect midterm clinical outcomes and survivorship of patellofemoral arthroplasty.术前髌骨高位并不影响髌股关节置换术的中期临床结果和存活率。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 May;29(5):1670-1677. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06205-z. Epub 2020 Sep 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative efficacy and safety of bicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and update meta-analysis.双髁间室与全膝关节置换术的比较疗效和安全性:一项系统评价与更新的荟萃分析
J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Mar 5;20(1):237. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05384-6.
2
Indications for the addition of a patellofemoral joint arthroplasty following a previous unicondylar knee arthroplasty- a literature review and Delphi consensus.先前单髁膝关节置换术后加做髌股关节置换术的适应证——文献综述与德尔菲共识
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2025 Jan 11;145(1):120. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05738-z.
3
Current status of bicompartmental arthroplasty.
双髁关节置换术的现状
Arthroplasty. 2025 Jan 3;7(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s42836-024-00283-x.
4
Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations.单髁膝关节置换术:争议与技术考量
Arthroplasty. 2024 May 2;6(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s42836-024-00242-6.