Stephan J Van Langeveld, Stein J Janssen, Koen L M Koenraadt, Joost A A M Van den Hout, Liza N Van Steenbergen, Rutger C I Van Geenen
{"title":"牛津部分膝关节微成形术器械后全膝关节置换术的翻修部件的使用和翻修率无差异:一项529例转换的注册研究。","authors":"Stephan J Van Langeveld, Stein J Janssen, Koen L M Koenraadt, Joost A A M Van den Hout, Liza N Van Steenbergen, Rutger C I Van Geenen","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2023.15310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"94 ","pages":"387-392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/90/ActaO-94-15310.PMC10388235.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.\",\"authors\":\"Stephan J Van Langeveld, Stein J Janssen, Koen L M Koenraadt, Joost A A M Van den Hout, Liza N Van Steenbergen, Rutger C I Van Geenen\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/17453674.2023.15310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"387-392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/31/90/ActaO-94-15310.PMC10388235.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.15310\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.15310","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.
Background and purpose: Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.
Patients and methods: Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.
Results: Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).
Conclusion: There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
