Comparison of survival rate and risk of revision for mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee replacements.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine
Marek Lacko, Daniela Schreierová
{"title":"Comparison of survival rate and risk of revision for mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee replacements.","authors":"Marek Lacko,&nbsp;Daniela Schreierová","doi":"10.5606/ehc.2019.62830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to determine whether there is a difference in the rate of survival and risk of revision for mobile-bearing (MB) compared with fixed-bearing (FB) total knee replacements (TKRs).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included 1,571 cemented non-posterior-stabilized TKRs without patellar resurfacing with the subsequent revision surgery in 63 patients (23 males, 40 females; mean age 69.7 years; range, 46.5 to 85.5 years). The group of FB TKRs consisted of 756 non-revised and 31 revised implants. The group of MB TKRs included 752 non-revised and 32 revised knees. We determined the survival rate of TKR with Kaplan-Meier method and the relative risk (RR) of the revision in relation to the type of the insert. The analysis of the RR was divided into subgroups based on the time to revision and the reason for revision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was found between FB and MB TKRs regarding the cumulative survival rate and the RR of total revision for any reasons. In the subgroup of early revisions for any reason, 2.22-fold increased risk of revision was found in the MB (p=0.02). The risk of late revisions for any reason in MB was lower than the risk in FB (RR 0.27; p=0.009). Higher risk of revision for instability was found in the subgroup of early revisions in MB (RR 23.8; p=0.03). MB was associated with significantly lower risk of total (RR 0.46; p=0.049) and late revisions for aseptic loosening (RR 0.14; p=0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No differences were found in the cumulative survival rates between MB and FB TKRs. MB TKRs were associated with a lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening in comparison with FB TKRs. MB inserts represented a significant risk factor only for early revisions due to instability.</p>","PeriodicalId":50551,"journal":{"name":"Eklem Hastaliklari Ve Cerrahisi-Joint Diseases and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eklem Hastaliklari Ve Cerrahisi-Joint Diseases and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2019.62830","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether there is a difference in the rate of survival and risk of revision for mobile-bearing (MB) compared with fixed-bearing (FB) total knee replacements (TKRs).

Patients and methods: This prospective observational study included 1,571 cemented non-posterior-stabilized TKRs without patellar resurfacing with the subsequent revision surgery in 63 patients (23 males, 40 females; mean age 69.7 years; range, 46.5 to 85.5 years). The group of FB TKRs consisted of 756 non-revised and 31 revised implants. The group of MB TKRs included 752 non-revised and 32 revised knees. We determined the survival rate of TKR with Kaplan-Meier method and the relative risk (RR) of the revision in relation to the type of the insert. The analysis of the RR was divided into subgroups based on the time to revision and the reason for revision.

Results: No significant difference was found between FB and MB TKRs regarding the cumulative survival rate and the RR of total revision for any reasons. In the subgroup of early revisions for any reason, 2.22-fold increased risk of revision was found in the MB (p=0.02). The risk of late revisions for any reason in MB was lower than the risk in FB (RR 0.27; p=0.009). Higher risk of revision for instability was found in the subgroup of early revisions in MB (RR 23.8; p=0.03). MB was associated with significantly lower risk of total (RR 0.46; p=0.049) and late revisions for aseptic loosening (RR 0.14; p=0.008).

Conclusion: No differences were found in the cumulative survival rates between MB and FB TKRs. MB TKRs were associated with a lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening in comparison with FB TKRs. MB inserts represented a significant risk factor only for early revisions due to instability.

活动和固定全膝关节置换术的生存率和翻修风险比较。
目的:本研究旨在确定活动轴承(MB)与固定轴承(FB)全膝关节置换术(TKRs)的生存率和翻修风险是否存在差异。患者和方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究纳入了63例患者(男性23例,女性40例;平均年龄69.7岁;范围:46.5至85.5岁)。FB tkr组包括756个未改良种植体和31个改良种植体。MB TKRs组包括752个未修复的膝关节和32个修复的膝关节。我们用Kaplan-Meier法测定TKR的存活率,以及与插入物类型相关的翻修相对风险(RR)。根据修订时间和修订原因将RR分析分为亚组。结果:无论何种原因,FB与MB tkr的累积生存率和总翻修的RR均无显著差异。在任何原因的早期修订亚组中,MB的修订风险增加了2.22倍(p=0.02)。在MB中,因任何原因延迟修订的风险低于FB的风险(RR 0.27;p = 0.009)。早期修订的MB亚组存在较高的不稳定性修订风险(RR 23.8;p = 0.03)。MB与总风险显著降低相关(RR 0.46;p=0.049)和无菌松动的后期修订(RR 0.14;p = 0.008)。结论:MB和FB TKRs的累积生存率无显著差异。与FB tkr相比,MB tkr因无菌性松动而翻修的风险较低。由于不稳定性,MB插入仅在早期修订中具有显著的风险因素。
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
1.90
自引率
43.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Joint Diseases and Related Surgery (formerly published as Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi) is the official publication of the Turkish Joint Diseases Foundation. Joint Diseases and Related Surgery is open access journal. The full text of the articles of the Journal is freely available without embargo since 1990. Joint Diseases and Related Surgery is international, double-blind peer-reviewed periodical journal bringing the latest developments in all aspects of joint diseases and related surgey.
×
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