一项随机对照试验:常规或机器人辅助全膝关节置换术后,术后cpap分级的变化对患者报告的结果测量没有显著影响。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Peter Bollars, Hans Feyen, Dinesh Nathwani, Ali Albelooshi, Max Ettinger, Ronny De Corte, Martijn G. M. Schotanus
{"title":"一项随机对照试验:常规或机器人辅助全膝关节置换术后,术后cpap分级的变化对患者报告的结果测量没有显著影响。","authors":"Peter Bollars,&nbsp;Hans Feyen,&nbsp;Dinesh Nathwani,&nbsp;Ali Albelooshi,&nbsp;Max Ettinger,&nbsp;Ronny De Corte,&nbsp;Martijn G. M. Schotanus","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of pre- and postoperative changes in Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to determine the rate of CPAK classification change in patients undergoing either conventionally aligned total knee arthroplasty (CTKA) or imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA). We hypothesised that PROM improvements would be comparable regardless of whether postoperative CPAK classification was preserved (“In-the-box”) or altered (“Out-of-the-box”) in both surgical techniques.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this prospective randomised controlled trial, 180 patients were assigned to either CTKA or RATKA. CPAK classification was assessed pre- and postoperatively. PROMs were collected at baseline, 3, and 12 months postoperatively, including the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, visual analog scale (VAS) for daytime and night time pain, EuroQol-5D (index and VAS), and patient satisfaction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Native CPAK classification was preserved in 31% of CTKA and 41% of RATKA patients. Postoperatively, CPAK II was most common (40% CTKA and 49% RATKA), followed by CPAK V. Both groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at 3- and 12-months, regardless of CPAK classification change, and operative technique.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Short-term functional outcomes following TKA were not significantly influenced by In-the-box or Out-of-the box CPAK classification. Both CTKA and RATKA yielded comparable PROM improvements. Although altered CPAK often required greater soft-tissue release, especially in CTKA, this did not affect outcomes, suggesting alignment strategy should prioritise individual anatomy and soft-tissue balance over strict CPAK matching.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Level I.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"33 9","pages":"3333-3340"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative changes in CPAK-classification do not significantly influence patient-reported outcome measures following conventional or robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Peter Bollars,&nbsp;Hans Feyen,&nbsp;Dinesh Nathwani,&nbsp;Ali Albelooshi,&nbsp;Max Ettinger,&nbsp;Ronny De Corte,&nbsp;Martijn G. M. Schotanus\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of pre- and postoperative changes in Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to determine the rate of CPAK classification change in patients undergoing either conventionally aligned total knee arthroplasty (CTKA) or imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA). We hypothesised that PROM improvements would be comparable regardless of whether postoperative CPAK classification was preserved (“In-the-box”) or altered (“Out-of-the-box”) in both surgical techniques.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this prospective randomised controlled trial, 180 patients were assigned to either CTKA or RATKA. CPAK classification was assessed pre- and postoperatively. PROMs were collected at baseline, 3, and 12 months postoperatively, including the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, visual analog scale (VAS) for daytime and night time pain, EuroQol-5D (index and VAS), and patient satisfaction.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Native CPAK classification was preserved in 31% of CTKA and 41% of RATKA patients. Postoperatively, CPAK II was most common (40% CTKA and 49% RATKA), followed by CPAK V. Both groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at 3- and 12-months, regardless of CPAK classification change, and operative technique.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Short-term functional outcomes following TKA were not significantly influenced by In-the-box or Out-of-the box CPAK classification. Both CTKA and RATKA yielded comparable PROM improvements. Although altered CPAK often required greater soft-tissue release, especially in CTKA, this did not affect outcomes, suggesting alignment strategy should prioritise individual anatomy and soft-tissue balance over strict CPAK matching.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\\n \\n <p>Level I.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"volume\":\"33 9\",\"pages\":\"3333-3340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ksa.12740\",\"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":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ksa.12740","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

目的:本研究的目的是调查术前和术后膝关节冠状面排列(CPAK)分类变化对患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)的影响,并确定接受常规排列全膝关节置换术(CTKA)或无图像机器人辅助全膝关节置换术(RATKA)的患者的CPAK分类变化率。我们假设,在两种手术技术中,无论术后CPAK分类是保留(“盒内”)还是改变(“盒外”),PROM的改善都是可比性的。方法:在这项前瞻性随机对照试验中,180名患者被分配到CTKA或RATKA组。术前、术后分别评估CPAK分型。在术后基线、3个月和12个月收集PROMs,包括膝关节社会评分、牛津膝关节评分、白天和夜间疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、EuroQol-5D(指数和VAS)和患者满意度。结果:两组间基线特征相似。31%的CTKA和41%的RATKA患者保留了原生CPAK分类。术后,CPAK II型最为常见(CTKA占40%,RATKA占49%),其次是CPAK v型。两组在3个月和12个月时,无论CPAK分型改变和手术技术如何,所有prom均有显著改善。结论:TKA后的短期功能结果不受盒内或盒外CPAK分类的显著影响。CTKA和RATKA都产生了相当的PROM改进。虽然改变的CPAK通常需要更大的软组织释放,特别是在CTKA中,但这并不影响结果,这表明对齐策略应优先考虑个体解剖和软组织平衡,而不是严格的CPAK匹配。证据等级:一级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Postoperative changes in CPAK-classification do not significantly influence patient-reported outcome measures following conventional or robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial

Postoperative changes in CPAK-classification do not significantly influence patient-reported outcome measures following conventional or robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial

Postoperative changes in CPAK-classification do not significantly influence patient-reported outcome measures following conventional or robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial

Postoperative changes in CPAK-classification do not significantly influence patient-reported outcome measures following conventional or robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial

Postoperative changes in CPAK-classification do not significantly influence patient-reported outcome measures following conventional or robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of pre- and postoperative changes in Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to determine the rate of CPAK classification change in patients undergoing either conventionally aligned total knee arthroplasty (CTKA) or imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA). We hypothesised that PROM improvements would be comparable regardless of whether postoperative CPAK classification was preserved (“In-the-box”) or altered (“Out-of-the-box”) in both surgical techniques.

Methods

In this prospective randomised controlled trial, 180 patients were assigned to either CTKA or RATKA. CPAK classification was assessed pre- and postoperatively. PROMs were collected at baseline, 3, and 12 months postoperatively, including the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, visual analog scale (VAS) for daytime and night time pain, EuroQol-5D (index and VAS), and patient satisfaction.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Native CPAK classification was preserved in 31% of CTKA and 41% of RATKA patients. Postoperatively, CPAK II was most common (40% CTKA and 49% RATKA), followed by CPAK V. Both groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at 3- and 12-months, regardless of CPAK classification change, and operative technique.

Conclusions

Short-term functional outcomes following TKA were not significantly influenced by In-the-box or Out-of-the box CPAK classification. Both CTKA and RATKA yielded comparable PROM improvements. Although altered CPAK often required greater soft-tissue release, especially in CTKA, this did not affect outcomes, suggesting alignment strategy should prioritise individual anatomy and soft-tissue balance over strict CPAK matching.

Level of Evidence

Level I.

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
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
18.40%
发文量
418
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Few other areas of orthopedic surgery and traumatology have undergone such a dramatic evolution in the last 10 years as knee surgery, arthroscopy and sports traumatology. Ranked among the top 33% of journals in both Orthopedics and Sports Sciences, the goal of this European journal is to publish papers about innovative knee surgery, sports trauma surgery and arthroscopy. Each issue features a series of peer-reviewed articles that deal with diagnosis and management and with basic research. Each issue also contains at least one review article about an important clinical problem. Case presentations or short notes about technical innovations are also accepted for publication. The articles cover all aspects of knee surgery and all types of sports trauma; in addition, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention, and all types of arthroscopy (not only the knee but also the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, ankle, etc.) are addressed. Articles on new diagnostic techniques such as MRI and ultrasound and high-quality articles about the biomechanics of joints, muscles and tendons are included. Although this is largely a clinical journal, it is also open to basic research with clinical relevance. Because the journal is supported by a distinguished European Editorial Board, assisted by an international Advisory Board, you can be assured that the journal maintains the highest standards. Official Clinical Journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信