Comparison of survival between cemented vs cementless unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a case control study with propensity score matching.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Pierre-Alban Bouché, Nicolas Gaujac, Wilfrid Graff, Luc Lhotellier, Vincent Le Strat, Simon Marmor
{"title":"Comparison of survival between cemented vs cementless unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a case control study with propensity score matching.","authors":"Pierre-Alban Bouché, Nicolas Gaujac, Wilfrid Graff, Luc Lhotellier, Vincent Le Strat, Simon Marmor","doi":"10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The first results of cementless prosthesis were rather disappointing. However recent progress in methods of cementless fixation of prosthesis should lead to better results in terms of survival of these prostheses. The main objective is to compare the survival rate at last follow-up of UKA with cemented tibial or cementless.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>We hypothesize that UKAs with uncemented tibial implants have better survival compared to UKAs with cemented tibial implants.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This single center case-control study included 94 medial UKA with a cemented tibial component that were paired by propensity score matching to 94 medial UKA with a uncemented tibial component. The main evaluation criterion was the comparison of the survivorship of the UKA between a cemented tibial implant and those with a cementless tibial implant in terms of all-cause revision surgery at last follow-up. The secondary endpoints were the analysis of the causes of failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean final follow-up was 6.1years (2.3). The overall survival rate in our serie of medial UKA was 92.4% [88.7%-96.3%] at five years. The overall survival rate in cemented group was and 91.5% [86.0%-97.3%] at five years and at 93.2% [88.1%-98.7%] at five years, in the uncemented group. No differences significant were observed in the two groups (p.value = 0.6). Only the tibial preoperative deformity was a risk factor of failure (HR: 1.11 [1.02, 1.20], value = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The use of a cemented or a cementless tibial component in a medial UKA did not influence the survival rate.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III; case control study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54664,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2024.103960","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The first results of cementless prosthesis were rather disappointing. However recent progress in methods of cementless fixation of prosthesis should lead to better results in terms of survival of these prostheses. The main objective is to compare the survival rate at last follow-up of UKA with cemented tibial or cementless.

Hypothesis: We hypothesize that UKAs with uncemented tibial implants have better survival compared to UKAs with cemented tibial implants.

Material and methods: This single center case-control study included 94 medial UKA with a cemented tibial component that were paired by propensity score matching to 94 medial UKA with a uncemented tibial component. The main evaluation criterion was the comparison of the survivorship of the UKA between a cemented tibial implant and those with a cementless tibial implant in terms of all-cause revision surgery at last follow-up. The secondary endpoints were the analysis of the causes of failure.

Results: The mean final follow-up was 6.1years (2.3). The overall survival rate in our serie of medial UKA was 92.4% [88.7%-96.3%] at five years. The overall survival rate in cemented group was and 91.5% [86.0%-97.3%] at five years and at 93.2% [88.1%-98.7%] at five years, in the uncemented group. No differences significant were observed in the two groups (p.value = 0.6). Only the tibial preoperative deformity was a risk factor of failure (HR: 1.11 [1.02, 1.20], value = 0.02).

Discussion: The use of a cemented or a cementless tibial component in a medial UKA did not influence the survival rate.

Level of evidence: III; case control study.

有骨水泥与无骨水泥单关节膝关节置换术的存活率比较:采用倾向评分匹配的病例对照研究。
简介无骨水泥假体的最初结果令人失望。然而,最近在假体无骨水泥固定方法方面取得的进展应该会提高这些假体的存活率。我们的主要目的是比较有骨水泥胫骨假体和无骨水泥胫骨假体在最后一次随访中的存活率:我们假设,与使用骨水泥胫骨假体的 UKA 相比,使用非骨水泥胫骨假体的 UKA 的存活率更高:这项单中心病例对照研究纳入了94例使用骨水泥胫骨组件的内侧UKA,通过倾向评分匹配将其与94例使用非骨水泥胫骨组件的内侧UKA配对。主要评估标准是比较有骨水泥胫骨假体和无骨水泥胫骨假体的UKA在最后一次随访时所有原因翻修手术的存活率。次要终点是分析失败原因:平均最后随访时间为6.1年(2.3)。我们的内侧UKA系列五年总存活率为92.4% [88.7%-96.3%]。骨水泥组的五年总存活率为91.5%[86.0%-97.3%],非骨水泥组的五年总存活率为93.2%[88.1%-98.7%]。两组间未发现明显差异(P.值=0.6)。只有胫骨术前畸形是失败的风险因素(HR:1.11 [1.02,1.20],值 = 0.02):讨论:在内侧UKA中使用有骨水泥或无骨水泥胫骨组件不会影响存活率:证据等级:III;病例对照研究。
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
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
26.10%
发文量
329
审稿时长
12.5 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) publishes original scientific work in English related to all domains of orthopaedics. Original articles, Reviews, Technical notes and Concise follow-up of a former OTSR study are published in English in electronic form only and indexed in the main international databases.
×
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