Young-Hoo Kim,Jang-Won Park,Young-Soo Jang,Eun-Jung Kim
{"title":"后十字韧带保留与后十字韧带替代 TKA 在翻修率或存活率方面无明显差异。","authors":"Young-Hoo Kim,Jang-Won Park,Young-Soo Jang,Eun-Jung Kim","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nMany authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThere were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA.\",\"authors\":\"Young-Hoo Kim,Jang-Won Park,Young-Soo Jang,Eun-Jung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/jbjs.24.00007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nMany authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThis study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThere were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThe findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA.
BACKGROUND
Many authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship.
METHODS
This study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).
RESULTS
There were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.