Journal of orthopaedics · 2024
The performance of cruciate-retaining implants for primary total knee arthroplasty in valgus deformed knees: A systematic review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Falgiano Peter A, Heifner John J, Yergler Thomas O, Guerra Christopher, Corces Arturo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Valgus deformity of the knee comprises upwards of 15 % of the deformities in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. 1,2 The two implants most commonly used in valgus deformed knees are posterior stabilizing (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) implants. CR implants may offer a more advantageous construct due to the retention of the PCL for proprioception and less bony resection compared to PS implants. The purpose of this systematic review is to aggregate findings for cruciate-retaining implants used in primary TKA with valgus deformed knees.
METHODS: In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, databases were queried for CR TKA studies which met the inclusion criteria. Cochrane ROBINS-I and the GRADE framework assessed bias and quality respectively.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference between preoperative and postoperative valgus deformity as measured by tibiofemoral angle. The all-cause revision rate was 8.3 % in our sample of 710 total knee arthroplasties.
CONCLUSION: This review of the literature demonstrates that, although scarcely reported, cruciate-retaining implants used in primary total knee arthroplasties in valgus deformed knees provide satisfactory outcomes such as arc of motion and knee score. Our results demonstrate a significant increase in all-cause revision when using CR implants for valgus deformed knee. For this reason, further investigations should be conducted to evaluate modes of failure in this specific patient population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV systematic review.
METHODS: In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, databases were queried for CR TKA studies which met the inclusion criteria. Cochrane ROBINS-I and the GRADE framework assessed bias and quality respectively.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference between preoperative and postoperative valgus deformity as measured by tibiofemoral angle. The all-cause revision rate was 8.3 % in our sample of 710 total knee arthroplasties.
CONCLUSION: This review of the literature demonstrates that, although scarcely reported, cruciate-retaining implants used in primary total knee arthroplasties in valgus deformed knees provide satisfactory outcomes such as arc of motion and knee score. Our results demonstrate a significant increase in all-cause revision when using CR implants for valgus deformed knee. For this reason, further investigations should be conducted to evaluate modes of failure in this specific patient population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV systematic review.