密歇根州的非骨水泥全膝关节置换术在5年随访中有较高的翻修率。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Thomas Z Paull, Martin J Weaver, Brendan J Comer, Huiyong T Zheng, Brian R Hallstrom, Richard E Hughes, David C Markel
{"title":"密歇根州的非骨水泥全膝关节置换术在5年随访中有较高的翻修率。","authors":"Thomas Z Paull, Martin J Weaver, Brendan J Comer, Huiyong T Zheng, Brian R Hallstrom, Richard E Hughes, David C Markel","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2025.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is considered the gold standard, uncemented designs are gaining popularity, especially in young men who are at higher risk of cemented failure. Assessing this growth's impact, the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative analyzed adoption rates of uncemented TKA and the effect of fixation technique on revision rates with the goal of assessing the revision rates and survivorship at five years of cemented versus uncemented TKA to further classify which patients may be more ideal candidates for cementless fixation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative data from 2017 to 2022 was analyzed to determine the survivorship of cemented versus uncemented TKAs. Descriptive statistics, demographics, and implant type were collected. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) was calculated based on the fixation method. The primary endpoint was time for the first revision. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared. Subanalyses were performed based on age, sex, body mass index, and implant type. Confidence intervals were set to 95%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The registry query yielded 147,838 TKAs. There were 18,523 (12.5%) uncemented TKAs. Uncemented TKA use increased yearly from 2017 to 2022 in all groups. Uncemented TKA had higher CPR through five years at all time points versus cemented (3.65 versus 3.19%, P < 0.0001). Uncemented TKA performed worse in both men and women (P < 0.01, P < 0.01). Unexpectedly, men < 55 years had higher CPR at all time points for the four most used implants (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of uncemented TKA has grown in Michigan across all patient subgroups. Uncemented TKAs had an overall higher risk of revision compared to cemented TKAs. The poorer outcomes appeared consistent across sex, age, and implant type. Younger men who are often preferred for uncemented fixation had higher failure rates. This study suggests that surgeons should be mindful of revision rates and patient selection when moving to uncemented TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty in the State of Michigan has Higher Rates of Revision Through 5-Year Follow-Up.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Z Paull, Martin J Weaver, Brendan J Comer, Huiyong T Zheng, Brian R Hallstrom, Richard E Hughes, David C Markel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arth.2025.03.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is considered the gold standard, uncemented designs are gaining popularity, especially in young men who are at higher risk of cemented failure. Assessing this growth's impact, the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative analyzed adoption rates of uncemented TKA and the effect of fixation technique on revision rates with the goal of assessing the revision rates and survivorship at five years of cemented versus uncemented TKA to further classify which patients may be more ideal candidates for cementless fixation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative data from 2017 to 2022 was analyzed to determine the survivorship of cemented versus uncemented TKAs. Descriptive statistics, demographics, and implant type were collected. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) was calculated based on the fixation method. The primary endpoint was time for the first revision. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared. Subanalyses were performed based on age, sex, body mass index, and implant type. Confidence intervals were set to 95%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The registry query yielded 147,838 TKAs. There were 18,523 (12.5%) uncemented TKAs. Uncemented TKA use increased yearly from 2017 to 2022 in all groups. Uncemented TKA had higher CPR through five years at all time points versus cemented (3.65 versus 3.19%, P < 0.0001). Uncemented TKA performed worse in both men and women (P < 0.01, P < 0.01). Unexpectedly, men < 55 years had higher CPR at all time points for the four most used implants (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of uncemented TKA has grown in Michigan across all patient subgroups. Uncemented TKAs had an overall higher risk of revision compared to cemented TKAs. The poorer outcomes appeared consistent across sex, age, and implant type. Younger men who are often preferred for uncemented fixation had higher failure rates. This study suggests that surgeons should be mindful of revision rates and patient selection when moving to uncemented TKA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Arthroplasty\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Arthroplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.03.007\",\"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":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.03.007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导论:虽然骨水泥全膝关节置换术(TKA)被认为是金标准,但非骨水泥设计越来越受欢迎,特别是在骨水泥失败风险较高的年轻男性中。为了评估这种增长的影响,密歇根关节置换术登记处协作质量倡议(MARCQI)分析了非骨水泥TKA的采采率和固定技术对翻修率的影响,目的是评估骨水泥与非骨水泥TKA的五年翻修率和生存率,以进一步分类哪些患者可能是更理想的无骨水泥固定候选人。方法:分析2017年至2022年MARCQI数据,以确定骨水泥与未骨水泥tka的生存率。收集描述性统计、人口统计学和种植体类型。根据固定法计算累计修正百分数(CPR)。主要终点是第一次修订的时间。比较Kaplan-Meier生存曲线。根据年龄、性别、身体质量指数(BMI)和植入物类型进行亚分析。置信区间设为95%。结果:注册表查询产生147,838个TKA。有18,523例(12.5%)未胶结。从2017年到2022年,所有组的非胶结TKA使用量每年都在增加。在所有时间点,未骨水泥TKA的CPR高于骨水泥TKA(3.65比3.19%,P < 0.0001)。非骨水泥TKA患者的临床表现均较差(P < 0.01, P < 0.01)。出乎意料的是,对于四种最常用的植入物,< 55岁的男性在所有时间点的CPR都更高(P < 0.05)。结论:在密歇根州的所有患者亚组中,非骨水泥TKA的使用都有所增长。与骨水泥tka相比,未骨水泥tka的翻修风险总体较高。较差的结果在性别、年龄和种植体类型上是一致的。年轻男性通常首选非骨水泥固定失败率较高。本研究提示外科医生在采用非骨水泥TKA时应注意翻修率和患者选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty in the State of Michigan has Higher Rates of Revision Through 5-Year Follow-Up.

Background: While cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is considered the gold standard, uncemented designs are gaining popularity, especially in young men who are at higher risk of cemented failure. Assessing this growth's impact, the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative analyzed adoption rates of uncemented TKA and the effect of fixation technique on revision rates with the goal of assessing the revision rates and survivorship at five years of cemented versus uncemented TKA to further classify which patients may be more ideal candidates for cementless fixation.

Methods: The Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative data from 2017 to 2022 was analyzed to determine the survivorship of cemented versus uncemented TKAs. Descriptive statistics, demographics, and implant type were collected. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) was calculated based on the fixation method. The primary endpoint was time for the first revision. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared. Subanalyses were performed based on age, sex, body mass index, and implant type. Confidence intervals were set to 95%.

Results: The registry query yielded 147,838 TKAs. There were 18,523 (12.5%) uncemented TKAs. Uncemented TKA use increased yearly from 2017 to 2022 in all groups. Uncemented TKA had higher CPR through five years at all time points versus cemented (3.65 versus 3.19%, P < 0.0001). Uncemented TKA performed worse in both men and women (P < 0.01, P < 0.01). Unexpectedly, men < 55 years had higher CPR at all time points for the four most used implants (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The use of uncemented TKA has grown in Michigan across all patient subgroups. Uncemented TKAs had an overall higher risk of revision compared to cemented TKAs. The poorer outcomes appeared consistent across sex, age, and implant type. Younger men who are often preferred for uncemented fixation had higher failure rates. This study suggests that surgeons should be mindful of revision rates and patient selection when moving to uncemented TKA.

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
Journal of Arthroplasty
Journal of Arthroplasty 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
734
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.
×
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