全膝关节置换术前后髌骨置换的活动范围比较

Melissa Jackels, Samantha N. Andrews, Maya Y. Matsumoto, Kristin A Mathews, Cass K. Nakasone
{"title":"全膝关节置换术前后髌骨置换的活动范围比较","authors":"Melissa Jackels, Samantha N. Andrews, Maya Y. Matsumoto, Kristin A Mathews, Cass K. Nakasone","doi":"10.15438/rr.11.1.286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite significant evaluation, no consensus has been reach for best clinical practice for resurfacing the patella during total knee arthroplasty. Further complicating the ability to reach a conclusion is the inclusion of several different implant types used in previous research. Questions/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare post-TKA outcomes between two cruciate retaining implants with or without patella resurfacing. Methods: This retrospective review included 289 patients (380 knees) with a minimum six-month follow-up. All patients received a CR implant, with either a symmetric or an asymmetric tibial baseplate. Post-TKA knee flexion was categorized as <120° and ≥120° and knee extension classified as 0° or >0° and required knee manipulations were noted. Descriptive, nonparametric statistics were performed and a multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk of poor range of motion and manipulations. Results: Age was significantly lower in the resurfaced group (p=0.001) and the resurfaced group had longer tourniquet time (p=0.003). The symmetric-resurfaced group had ≥120° of flexion and full extension in 72% and 98.7% of patients, respectively. Compared to symmetric-resurfaced, all other groups had a significantly greater risk of not reaching 120° of knee flexion (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the risk of requiring a MUA between groups (p>0.06). Conclusions: The effect of resurfacing the patella on post-TKA outcomes may be influenced by tibial implant design. Compared to all other combinations, a symmetric tibial baseplate and resurfaced patella resulted in the highest percentage of patients reaching ≥120°, with a low incidence of manipulations.","PeriodicalId":20884,"journal":{"name":"Reconstructive Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Range of Motion Comparison Following Total Knee Arthroplasty with and without Patella Resurfacing\",\"authors\":\"Melissa Jackels, Samantha N. Andrews, Maya Y. Matsumoto, Kristin A Mathews, Cass K. Nakasone\",\"doi\":\"10.15438/rr.11.1.286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Despite significant evaluation, no consensus has been reach for best clinical practice for resurfacing the patella during total knee arthroplasty. Further complicating the ability to reach a conclusion is the inclusion of several different implant types used in previous research. Questions/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare post-TKA outcomes between two cruciate retaining implants with or without patella resurfacing. Methods: This retrospective review included 289 patients (380 knees) with a minimum six-month follow-up. All patients received a CR implant, with either a symmetric or an asymmetric tibial baseplate. Post-TKA knee flexion was categorized as <120° and ≥120° and knee extension classified as 0° or >0° and required knee manipulations were noted. Descriptive, nonparametric statistics were performed and a multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk of poor range of motion and manipulations. Results: Age was significantly lower in the resurfaced group (p=0.001) and the resurfaced group had longer tourniquet time (p=0.003). The symmetric-resurfaced group had ≥120° of flexion and full extension in 72% and 98.7% of patients, respectively. Compared to symmetric-resurfaced, all other groups had a significantly greater risk of not reaching 120° of knee flexion (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the risk of requiring a MUA between groups (p>0.06). Conclusions: The effect of resurfacing the patella on post-TKA outcomes may be influenced by tibial implant design. Compared to all other combinations, a symmetric tibial baseplate and resurfaced patella resulted in the highest percentage of patients reaching ≥120°, with a low incidence of manipulations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reconstructive Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reconstructive Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.11.1.286\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reconstructive Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.11.1.286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管有重要的评估,但在全膝关节置换术中髌骨表面置换的最佳临床实践尚未达成共识。进一步使得出结论的能力变得复杂的是,在以前的研究中包括了几种不同的植入物类型。问题/目的:本研究的目的是比较有或没有髌骨表面置换的两种交叉保留植入物在tka后的结果。方法:回顾性分析289例患者(380个膝关节),随访至少6个月。所有患者都接受了CR植入,有对称的或不对称的胫骨底板。tka后膝关节屈曲为0°,并记录了所需的膝关节操作。进行了描述性、非参数统计,并进行了多变量逻辑回归,以确定不良活动范围和操作的风险。结果:表面修复组患者年龄明显降低(p=0.001),止血带时间明显延长(p=0.003)。对称表面修复组患者屈曲≥120°的比例分别为72%和98.7%。与对称表面修复组相比,所有其他组的膝关节屈曲度达不到120°的风险显著增加(p0.06)。结论:髌骨表面置换对tka术后预后的影响可能受胫骨植入物设计的影响。与所有其他组合相比,对称胫骨基板和髌骨表面置换导致≥120°的患者比例最高,手法发生率低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Range of Motion Comparison Following Total Knee Arthroplasty with and without Patella Resurfacing
Background: Despite significant evaluation, no consensus has been reach for best clinical practice for resurfacing the patella during total knee arthroplasty. Further complicating the ability to reach a conclusion is the inclusion of several different implant types used in previous research. Questions/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare post-TKA outcomes between two cruciate retaining implants with or without patella resurfacing. Methods: This retrospective review included 289 patients (380 knees) with a minimum six-month follow-up. All patients received a CR implant, with either a symmetric or an asymmetric tibial baseplate. Post-TKA knee flexion was categorized as <120° and ≥120° and knee extension classified as 0° or >0° and required knee manipulations were noted. Descriptive, nonparametric statistics were performed and a multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk of poor range of motion and manipulations. Results: Age was significantly lower in the resurfaced group (p=0.001) and the resurfaced group had longer tourniquet time (p=0.003). The symmetric-resurfaced group had ≥120° of flexion and full extension in 72% and 98.7% of patients, respectively. Compared to symmetric-resurfaced, all other groups had a significantly greater risk of not reaching 120° of knee flexion (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the risk of requiring a MUA between groups (p>0.06). Conclusions: The effect of resurfacing the patella on post-TKA outcomes may be influenced by tibial implant design. Compared to all other combinations, a symmetric tibial baseplate and resurfaced patella resulted in the highest percentage of patients reaching ≥120°, with a low incidence of manipulations.
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
2
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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