Tew M, Waugh W, Forster I W
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985 Nov;67(5):775-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.67B5.4055880.
Many knee replacement prostheses, embodying various principles of design, are now available and there is need for a method by which valid comparisons of results can be made. An important criterion of success is durability, so the length of time the prostheses have been in situ must be taken into account. Such a method is proposed here and is applied to the results of 673 knee replacements, of nine different types, implanted at the same hospital between 1970 and 1983. A prosthesis was considered to have failed if it had been removed or persistently caused severe pain. Two types of prosthesis were found to be significantly less successful than the other seven, between which none consistently showed significant superiority. Results for the seven types were similar despite the facts that they had been used for knees with different degrees of damage, some as secondary implants, and that they were of different design and at different stages of technical development. The more recently introduced types of prosthesis, designed to have theoretical advantages, were found in practice to be no more successful than the models they superseded.
现在有许多体现各种设计原理的膝关节置换假体，因此需要一种能够对结果进行有效比较的方法。成功的一个重要标准是耐用性，所以必须考虑假体在位的时间长度。本文提出了这样一种方法，并将其应用于1970年至1983年间在同一家医院植入的673例九种不同类型膝关节置换手术的结果。如果假体被移除或持续引起剧痛，则认为其失败。结果发现，有两种类型的假体明显不如其他七种成功，而这七种之间没有一种始终表现出显著的优越性。尽管这七种类型的假体被用于不同损伤程度的膝关节，有些作为二次植入物，并且它们设计不同、处于技术发展的不同阶段，但结果相似。在实践中发现，那些最近推出的具有理论优势的假体类型并不比它们所取代的型号更成功。
