单髁膝关节置换术:争议与技术考虑因素。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Waleed Albishi, Nasser M AbuDujain, Mohammed Aldhahri, Meshari Alzeer
{"title":"单髁膝关节置换术:争议与技术考虑因素。","authors":"Waleed Albishi, Nasser M AbuDujain, Mohammed Aldhahri, Meshari Alzeer","doi":"10.1186/s42836-024-00242-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients' return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon's preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":52831,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty","volume":"6 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11064323/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations.\",\"authors\":\"Waleed Albishi, Nasser M AbuDujain, Mohammed Aldhahri, Meshari Alzeer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42836-024-00242-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients' return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon's preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroplasty\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11064323/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00242-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00242-6","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

背景:单间室膝关节置换术(UKR)是治疗无症状膝关节骨性关节炎的有效方法之一。此外,与全膝关节置换术(TKA)相比,它具有多种优势,包括减少术中失血、降低输血风险和加快恢复。本研究旨在讨论有关 UKR 的关键技术注意事项以及一些争议和最新进展:我们进行了一项综述,从多个方面概述了有关 UKR 的争议和技术注意事项。通过使用 PubMed、Google Scholar、ERIC 和 Cochrane 数据库中的系统综述数据库,仅纳入了截至 2023 年 12 月的同行评议文章:结果:UKR 与患者报告的出色临床和功能结果、较短的住院时间、较少的术后并发症以及患者恢复运动的良好结果相关。移动式和固定式假体的选择部分取决于外科医生的偏好。移动支承型UKR是一种限制较少的假体,有可能减少磨损,但对技术要求较高。虽然活动支承假体与固定支承假体没有明显区别,但无骨水泥设计优于有骨水泥设计。此外,UKR 是胫骨高位截骨术(HTO)的良好替代方案,在 HTO 失败后仍可考虑使用。最后,最近的评论显示,UKR 的翻修率与 TKA 相当。这可能是受最佳适应症、患者选择标准以及设计、材料和技术进步的影响:结论:UKR 治疗膝关节单间室骨关节炎安全有效。根据临床和功能结果、发病率和死亡率的降低以及成本效益,长期研究表明 UKR 优于 TKA。在这一领域还需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations.

Background: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.

Methods: We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.

Result: UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients' return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon's preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.

Conclusion: UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Arthroplasty
Arthroplasty ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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