No difference in clinical outcome but in RSA in total knee arthroplasty with the ATTUNE vs. the PFC Sigma: a randomized trial with 2-year follow-up.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Thom Keiller, Tuuli Saari, Bita Sharegi, Johan Kärrholm
{"title":"No difference in clinical outcome but in RSA in total knee arthroplasty with the ATTUNE vs. the PFC Sigma: a randomized trial with 2-year follow-up.","authors":"Thom Keiller, Tuuli Saari, Bita Sharegi, Johan Kärrholm","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2023.24577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Despite usage of the ATTUNE total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for about 10 years, few randomized trials exist. We evaluated whether the ATTUNE CR design showed improved clinical results compared with the PFC Sigma CR after 2 years and if there was a difference in tibial component migration.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>96 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly treated with cemented ATTUNE or PFC Sigma TKA. 42 patients with the ATTUNE and 48 with the PFC Sigma attended the 2-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), migration measured with RSA, implant position, and the development of radiolucent zones were studied. Non-parametric tests and repeated measures analysis were used at the statistical evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 2 years (primary outcome) and neither of the secondary PROM outcomes differed between the groups (mean difference OKS ATTUNE - PFC: -0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.9 to 2.7). RSA showed posterior tilt of the tibial component in the ATTUNE group with proximal lift-off anteriorly and subsidence of the tibial tray posteriorly. In contrast, the PFC Sigma tibial component tilted forward (mean difference ATTUNE - PFC: -0.7°, CI -1.1° to -0.4°) with maximum subsidence in the front and maximum lift-off of the posterior edge. The postoperative implant positions and the extension of radiolucent lines around the tibial component at 2 years did not differ.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no significant differences in clinical outcome between the 2 groups but minor differences in migration pattern of the tibial component. The clinical long-term significance of this finding if any is not known.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"94 ","pages":"560-569"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.24577","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Despite usage of the ATTUNE total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for about 10 years, few randomized trials exist. We evaluated whether the ATTUNE CR design showed improved clinical results compared with the PFC Sigma CR after 2 years and if there was a difference in tibial component migration.

Patients and methods: 96 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly treated with cemented ATTUNE or PFC Sigma TKA. 42 patients with the ATTUNE and 48 with the PFC Sigma attended the 2-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), migration measured with RSA, implant position, and the development of radiolucent zones were studied. Non-parametric tests and repeated measures analysis were used at the statistical evaluation.

Results: The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 2 years (primary outcome) and neither of the secondary PROM outcomes differed between the groups (mean difference OKS ATTUNE - PFC: -0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.9 to 2.7). RSA showed posterior tilt of the tibial component in the ATTUNE group with proximal lift-off anteriorly and subsidence of the tibial tray posteriorly. In contrast, the PFC Sigma tibial component tilted forward (mean difference ATTUNE - PFC: -0.7°, CI -1.1° to -0.4°) with maximum subsidence in the front and maximum lift-off of the posterior edge. The postoperative implant positions and the extension of radiolucent lines around the tibial component at 2 years did not differ.

Conclusion: We found no significant differences in clinical outcome between the 2 groups but minor differences in migration pattern of the tibial component. The clinical long-term significance of this finding if any is not known.

在全膝关节置换术中,ATTUNE与PFC Sigma的临床结果无差异,但RSA有差异:一项2年随访的随机试验。
背景和目的:尽管使用ATTUNE全膝关节置换术(TKA)约10年,但很少有随机试验存在。我们评估了ATTUNE CR设计是否在2年后与PFC Sigma CR相比显示出更好的临床结果,以及胫骨成分迁移是否存在差异。患者和方法:96例膝关节骨性关节炎患者随机接受骨水泥ATTUNE或PFC Sigma TKA治疗。42例ATTUNE患者和48例PFC Sigma患者参加了为期2年的随访。研究了患者报告的结果测量(PROMs),用RSA测量的迁移,种植体位置和放射透光区的发展。统计评价采用非参数检验和重复测量分析。结果:2年时的牛津膝关节评分(OKS)(主要结局)和两组间的次要预后均无差异(OKS - tune - PFC平均差异:-0.08,95%可信区间[CI] -2.9至2.7)。RSA显示atune组胫骨组件后倾斜,前近端上升,后端胫骨托盘下沉。相比之下,PFC Sigma胫骨组件向前倾斜(平均差值tune - PFC: -0.7°,CI -1.1°至-0.4°),最大下沉在前部,最大上升在后缘。术后植入物的位置和2年胫骨周围放射线的延伸没有差异。结论:我们发现两组临床结果无显著差异,但胫骨假体的移动方式有轻微差异。这一发现的临床长期意义尚不清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信