Dimnjaković Damjan, Serdar Jure, Jelić Mislav, Bohaček Ivan, Delimar Domagoj
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Acta Clin Croat. 2023 Aug;62(Suppl3):98-105. doi: 10.20471/acc.2023.62.s3.13.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 4-year survivorship of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) of a single manufacturer and determine whether failure rates differ between the cruciate-retaining (CR) and the posterior-stabilised (PS) type of implant. In addition, possible causes of revision were analysed as well. A retrospective analysis of 580 TKAs, with either the CR or the PS type of the Biotech Future Knee endoprosthesis (BIOTECH GmbH, Garbsen-Berenbostel, Germany) was performed. The 4-year survivorship for revision of any cause in all cases was 89.14%, with aseptic loosening being the most common cause of revision (53.9%). Regarding the type of implant model, the revision rate was higher in the PS group compared to the CR group (13.7% to 8.0%, respectively, p=0.027). The Cox regression models suggested that the type of prosthesis was a significant predictor of the need for revision (HR, 0.442; 95% CI, 0.234-0.833). In conclusion, our study has shown higher revision rates with the PS implant type when compared to the CR implant type with a higher rate of aseptic loosening in the PS group. Further studies are needed to determine the cause of these results and to investigate whether the problem is specific to the implant.
本研究的目的是评估单一制造商全膝关节置换术（TKA）的4年生存率，并确定十字韧带保留型（CR）和后稳定型（PS）植入物的失败率是否存在差异。此外，还分析了翻修的可能原因。对580例采用德国加尔布森 - 贝伦博斯特尔的生物技术未来膝关节假体（BIOTECH GmbH）的CR型或PS型的TKA进行了回顾性分析。所有病例中因任何原因进行翻修的4年生存率为89.14%，无菌性松动是最常见的翻修原因（53.9%）。关于植入模型类型，PS组的翻修率高于CR组（分别为13.7%和8.0%，p = 0.027）。Cox回归模型表明假体类型是翻修需求的重要预测因素（风险比，0.442；95%置信区间，0.234 - 0.833）。总之，我们的研究表明，与CR植入物类型相比，PS植入物类型的翻修率更高，且PS组无菌性松动率更高。需要进一步研究以确定这些结果的原因，并调查该问题是否特定于该植入物。
