Patient-specific instrumentation improved clinical outcome and implant survival but is not superior compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty: Ten years follow-up of a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Dieuwertje M J Theeuwen, Isobel M Dorling, Jasper Most, Rogier A M van Drumpt, Walter van der Weegen, Tim J M Welting, Martijn G M Schotanus, Bert Boonen
{"title":"Patient-specific instrumentation improved clinical outcome and implant survival but is not superior compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty: Ten years follow-up of a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Dieuwertje M J Theeuwen, Isobel M Dorling, Jasper Most, Rogier A M van Drumpt, Walter van der Weegen, Tim J M Welting, Martijn G M Schotanus, Bert Boonen","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is a commonly used technique designed to improve mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and was therefore believed to lead to better clinical outcome and implant survival rates compared with conventional instruments (CIs). To date, long-term results comparing these two techniques are not available.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a 10-year follow-up of a previous double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial where PSI was compared with CI. Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who were candidates for TKA were included. Exclusion criteria were metal near the knee-, ankle- or hip joint, patients with contra-indications for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and patients who had previous knee surgery (except arthroscopic meniscectomy). Clinical outcomes were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the analysis was performed with a general linear mixed model for repeated measurements. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare revision rates. X-rays were obtained and examined by two individual reviewers for any signs of loosening of the components.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At a mean follow-up of 10.1 (SD 0.1) years, 129 patients (loss to follow-up 23%) were analysed in this trial. No statistically significant difference between the two groups were found for any of the PROMs and revision rates were comparable, six in the PSI group and three in the CI group (p = 0.29). Two X-rays in the PSI group showed a radiolucent line of the femoral component.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>At 10-year follow-up, PSI does not lead to better clinical outcome or survival of the prosthesis compared with CI.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 1: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12505","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is a commonly used technique designed to improve mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and was therefore believed to lead to better clinical outcome and implant survival rates compared with conventional instruments (CIs). To date, long-term results comparing these two techniques are not available.

Methods: This study is a 10-year follow-up of a previous double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial where PSI was compared with CI. Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who were candidates for TKA were included. Exclusion criteria were metal near the knee-, ankle- or hip joint, patients with contra-indications for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and patients who had previous knee surgery (except arthroscopic meniscectomy). Clinical outcomes were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the analysis was performed with a general linear mixed model for repeated measurements. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare revision rates. X-rays were obtained and examined by two individual reviewers for any signs of loosening of the components.

Results: At a mean follow-up of 10.1 (SD 0.1) years, 129 patients (loss to follow-up 23%) were analysed in this trial. No statistically significant difference between the two groups were found for any of the PROMs and revision rates were comparable, six in the PSI group and three in the CI group (p = 0.29). Two X-rays in the PSI group showed a radiolucent line of the femoral component.

Conclusion: At 10-year follow-up, PSI does not lead to better clinical outcome or survival of the prosthesis compared with CI.

Level of evidence: 1:

患者特异性器械改善了临床效果和植入物存活率,但与传统全膝关节置换术相比并无优势:一项多中心双盲随机对照试验的十年随访。
目的:患者特异性器械(PSI)是一种常用技术,旨在改善全膝关节置换术(TKA)中的机械对位,因此与传统器械(CI)相比,PSI 被认为能带来更好的临床效果和植入物存活率。迄今为止,还没有比较这两种技术的长期结果:本研究是对之前一项双盲多中心随机对照试验的 10 年随访,该试验将 PSI 与 CI 进行了比较。研究对象包括膝关节骨性关节炎患者和 TKA 候选者。排除标准为膝关节、踝关节或髋关节附近有金属,有磁共振成像(MRI)扫描禁忌症,以及曾接受过膝关节手术(关节镜半月板切除术除外)的患者。临床结果采用患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)进行评估,分析采用一般线性混合模型进行重复测量。Kaplan-Meier曲线用于比较翻修率。X光片由两名审查员进行检查,以确定是否存在组件松动的迹象:该试验分析了平均随访10.1年(SD 0.1)的129名患者(随访损失率为23%)。两组患者的 PROMs 均无统计学差异,翻修率也相当,PSI 组为 6 例,CI 组为 3 例(P = 0.29)。PSI 组的两张 X 光片显示股骨组件有一条放射线:结论:在10年的随访中,与CI相比,PSI不会带来更好的临床效果或假体存活率:1:
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
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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