双侧全膝关节置换术中患者特异性内固定与常规内固定的急性围手术期比较。

Surgery Research and Practice Pub Date : 2018-02-21 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2018/9326459
Jerrod A Steimle, Michael T Groover, Brad A Webb, Brian J Ceccarelli
{"title":"双侧全膝关节置换术中患者特异性内固定与常规内固定的急性围手术期比较。","authors":"Jerrod A Steimle,&nbsp;Michael T Groover,&nbsp;Brad A Webb,&nbsp;Brian J Ceccarelli","doi":"10.1155/2018/9326459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Utilizing patient-specific instrumentation during total knee arthroplasty has gained popularity in recent years with theoretical advantages in blood loss, intraoperative time, length of stay, postoperative alignment, and functional outcome, amongst others. No study has compared acute perioperative measures between patient-specific instrumentation and conventional instrumentation in the bilateral total knee arthroplasty setting. We compared patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation in the setting of bilateral total knee arthroplasty to determine any benefits in the immediate perioperative period including surgical time, blood loss, pain medication use, length of stay, and discharge disposition. A total of 49 patients with standard instrumentation and 31 patients with patient-specific instrumentation were retrospectively reviewed in a two-year period at one facility. At baseline, the groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA, BMI, and comorbid conditions. We analyzed data on operative time, blood loss, hemoglobin change, need for transfusion, pain medication use, length of stay, and discharge disposition. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in regards to these parameters. Patient-specific instrumentation in the setting of bilateral total knee arthroplasty did not provide any immediate perioperative benefit compared to conventional instrumentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":30584,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Research and Practice","volume":"2018 ","pages":"9326459"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/9326459","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acute Perioperative Comparison of Patient-Specific Instrumentation versus Conventional Instrumentation Utilization during Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Jerrod A Steimle,&nbsp;Michael T Groover,&nbsp;Brad A Webb,&nbsp;Brian J Ceccarelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2018/9326459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Utilizing patient-specific instrumentation during total knee arthroplasty has gained popularity in recent years with theoretical advantages in blood loss, intraoperative time, length of stay, postoperative alignment, and functional outcome, amongst others. No study has compared acute perioperative measures between patient-specific instrumentation and conventional instrumentation in the bilateral total knee arthroplasty setting. We compared patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation in the setting of bilateral total knee arthroplasty to determine any benefits in the immediate perioperative period including surgical time, blood loss, pain medication use, length of stay, and discharge disposition. A total of 49 patients with standard instrumentation and 31 patients with patient-specific instrumentation were retrospectively reviewed in a two-year period at one facility. At baseline, the groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA, BMI, and comorbid conditions. We analyzed data on operative time, blood loss, hemoglobin change, need for transfusion, pain medication use, length of stay, and discharge disposition. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in regards to these parameters. Patient-specific instrumentation in the setting of bilateral total knee arthroplasty did not provide any immediate perioperative benefit compared to conventional instrumentation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2018 \",\"pages\":\"9326459\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/9326459\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9326459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9326459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

近年来,在全膝关节置换术中使用患者特异性内固定越来越受欢迎,在出血量、术中时间、住院时间、术后对齐和功能结果等方面具有理论上的优势。没有研究比较双侧全膝关节置换术中患者特异性内固定和常规内固定的急性围手术期措施。我们比较了双侧全膝关节置换术中患者特异性内固定与常规内固定,以确定围手术期的任何益处,包括手术时间、出血量、止痛药使用、住院时间和出院处置。我们在一家医院对49名采用标准内固定的患者和31名采用患者专用内固定的患者进行了为期两年的回顾性研究。在基线时,两组在年龄、ASA、BMI和合并症方面具有可比性。我们分析了手术时间、出血量、血红蛋白变化、输血需求、止痛药使用、住院时间和出院处置等数据。在这些参数方面,组间无统计学差异。与常规内固定相比,双侧全膝关节置换术中患者特异性内固定不能提供任何直接的围手术期益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acute Perioperative Comparison of Patient-Specific Instrumentation versus Conventional Instrumentation Utilization during Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Utilizing patient-specific instrumentation during total knee arthroplasty has gained popularity in recent years with theoretical advantages in blood loss, intraoperative time, length of stay, postoperative alignment, and functional outcome, amongst others. No study has compared acute perioperative measures between patient-specific instrumentation and conventional instrumentation in the bilateral total knee arthroplasty setting. We compared patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation in the setting of bilateral total knee arthroplasty to determine any benefits in the immediate perioperative period including surgical time, blood loss, pain medication use, length of stay, and discharge disposition. A total of 49 patients with standard instrumentation and 31 patients with patient-specific instrumentation were retrospectively reviewed in a two-year period at one facility. At baseline, the groups were comparable with respect to age, ASA, BMI, and comorbid conditions. We analyzed data on operative time, blood loss, hemoglobin change, need for transfusion, pain medication use, length of stay, and discharge disposition. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in regards to these parameters. Patient-specific instrumentation in the setting of bilateral total knee arthroplasty did not provide any immediate perioperative benefit compared to conventional instrumentation.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Surgery Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for surgeons and the surgical research community. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on clinical and laboratory research relevant to surgical practice and teaching, with an emphasis on findings directly affecting surgical management.
×
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