髌骨股骨置换术:与全膝关节置换术和内侧单腔膝关节置换术相比,患者人口统计学和翻修原因:来自挪威关节置换术登记的长期随访数据。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Harald Nagelgaard Omenås, Einar Lindalen, Ove Nord Furnes, Anne Marie Fenstad, Mona Badawy
{"title":"髌骨股骨置换术:与全膝关节置换术和内侧单腔膝关节置换术相比,患者人口统计学和翻修原因:来自挪威关节置换术登记的长期随访数据。","authors":"Harald Nagelgaard Omenås, Einar Lindalen, Ove Nord Furnes, Anne Marie Fenstad, Mona Badawy","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2025.44593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is a rare surgical procedure for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). This study compares patient demographics, long-term survival rates, revision risks, and causes of revision in PFA with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) (1994-2022) included 725 PFA, 102,135 TKA, and 14,315 UKA procedures. We used Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis to calculate implant survival at 2, 5, 10, and 15 years and Cox regression adjusted for confounders to assess revision risks. Revision causes were analyzed for procedures after 2005.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> PFA patients were more often female (72%) than TKA (62%) and UKA (51%) patients and had a lower mean age (54.3 for PFA, 69.0 for TKA, and 65.6 for UKA). At 10 years, KM survival was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80.6-88.2) for PFA, 94% (CI 93.8-94.2) for TKA, and 84% (CI 83.6-85.1) for UKA. Among patients < 60 years, KM survival at 10 years was 84% (CI 79.4-88.1) for PFA, 90% (CI 89.3-90.4) for TKA, and 79% (CI 77.1-80.3) for UKA. In patients < 60 years with < 10 years' follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for revision were 0.9 for TKA and 1.7 for UKA compared with PFA. Adjusted HR for > 10 years' follow-up showed lower revision risks for TKA with 0.3 and no significant difference for UKA (HR 0.9). Progression of OA was the leading cause of revision in PFA (49%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> PFA was predominantly performed in younger female patients. In patients < 60 years, PFA showed similar 10-year survival to TKA but inferior survival after 15 years. Revision rates for PFA are comparable to UKA but inferior to TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"96 ","pages":"671-676"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12404100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patellofemoral arthroplasty-patient demographics and revision causes compared with total and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term follow-up data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.\",\"authors\":\"Harald Nagelgaard Omenås, Einar Lindalen, Ove Nord Furnes, Anne Marie Fenstad, Mona Badawy\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/17453674.2025.44593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is a rare surgical procedure for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). This study compares patient demographics, long-term survival rates, revision risks, and causes of revision in PFA with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) (1994-2022) included 725 PFA, 102,135 TKA, and 14,315 UKA procedures. We used Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis to calculate implant survival at 2, 5, 10, and 15 years and Cox regression adjusted for confounders to assess revision risks. Revision causes were analyzed for procedures after 2005.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> PFA patients were more often female (72%) than TKA (62%) and UKA (51%) patients and had a lower mean age (54.3 for PFA, 69.0 for TKA, and 65.6 for UKA). At 10 years, KM survival was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80.6-88.2) for PFA, 94% (CI 93.8-94.2) for TKA, and 84% (CI 83.6-85.1) for UKA. Among patients < 60 years, KM survival at 10 years was 84% (CI 79.4-88.1) for PFA, 90% (CI 89.3-90.4) for TKA, and 79% (CI 77.1-80.3) for UKA. In patients < 60 years with < 10 years' follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for revision were 0.9 for TKA and 1.7 for UKA compared with PFA. Adjusted HR for > 10 years' follow-up showed lower revision risks for TKA with 0.3 and no significant difference for UKA (HR 0.9). Progression of OA was the leading cause of revision in PFA (49%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> PFA was predominantly performed in younger female patients. In patients < 60 years, PFA showed similar 10-year survival to TKA but inferior survival after 15 years. Revision rates for PFA are comparable to UKA but inferior to TKA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"volume\":\"96 \",\"pages\":\"671-676\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12404100/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Orthopaedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44593\",\"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/10.2340/17453674.2025.44593","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

背景与目的:髌股关节置换术(PFA)是治疗孤立性髌股骨关节炎(PFOA)的罕见手术方法。本研究比较了全膝关节置换术(TKA)和单室膝关节置换术(UKA)患者的人口统计学特征、长期生存率、翻修风险和翻修原因。方法:来自挪威关节成形术登记(NAR)(1994-2022)的数据包括725例PFA, 102,135例TKA和14,315例UKA手术。我们使用Kaplan-Meier (KM)分析计算种植体在2年、5年、10年和15年的生存期,并用Cox回归校正混杂因素来评估翻修风险。分析了2005年以后程序修改的原因。结果:与TKA(62%)和UKA(51%)患者相比,PFA患者多为女性(72%),且平均年龄更低(PFA为54.3岁,TKA为69.0岁,UKA为65.6岁)。10年时,PFA患者的KM生存率为85%(95%可信区间[CI] 80.6-88.2), TKA患者为94% (CI 93.8-94.2), UKA患者为84% (CI 83.6-85.1)。在< 60岁的患者中,PFA患者10年KM生存率为84% (CI 79.4-88.1), TKA患者为90% (CI 89.3-90.4), UKA患者为79% (CI 77.1-80.3)。在< 60岁、随访时间< 10年的患者中,与PFA相比,TKA校正后的风险比(HR)为0.9,UKA校正后的风险比为1.7。10年随访调整后的HR显示TKA的修订风险较低,为0.3,而UKA的修订风险无显著差异(HR为0.9)。OA进展是PFA翻修的主要原因(49%)。结论:PFA主要用于年轻女性患者。在< 60岁的患者中,PFA的10年生存率与TKA相似,但15年后的生存率较低。PFA的修正率与UKA相当,但低于TKA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Patellofemoral arthroplasty-patient demographics and revision causes compared with total and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term follow-up data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty-patient demographics and revision causes compared with total and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term follow-up data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty-patient demographics and revision causes compared with total and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term follow-up data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty-patient demographics and revision causes compared with total and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term follow-up data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

Background and purpose:  Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is a rare surgical procedure for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). This study compares patient demographics, long-term survival rates, revision risks, and causes of revision in PFA with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Methods: Data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) (1994-2022) included 725 PFA, 102,135 TKA, and 14,315 UKA procedures. We used Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis to calculate implant survival at 2, 5, 10, and 15 years and Cox regression adjusted for confounders to assess revision risks. Revision causes were analyzed for procedures after 2005.

Results:  PFA patients were more often female (72%) than TKA (62%) and UKA (51%) patients and had a lower mean age (54.3 for PFA, 69.0 for TKA, and 65.6 for UKA). At 10 years, KM survival was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80.6-88.2) for PFA, 94% (CI 93.8-94.2) for TKA, and 84% (CI 83.6-85.1) for UKA. Among patients < 60 years, KM survival at 10 years was 84% (CI 79.4-88.1) for PFA, 90% (CI 89.3-90.4) for TKA, and 79% (CI 77.1-80.3) for UKA. In patients < 60 years with < 10 years' follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for revision were 0.9 for TKA and 1.7 for UKA compared with PFA. Adjusted HR for > 10 years' follow-up showed lower revision risks for TKA with 0.3 and no significant difference for UKA (HR 0.9). Progression of OA was the leading cause of revision in PFA (49%).

Conclusion:  PFA was predominantly performed in younger female patients. In patients < 60 years, PFA showed similar 10-year survival to TKA but inferior survival after 15 years. Revision rates for PFA are comparable to UKA but inferior to 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
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
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