The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2024
No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kim Young-Hoo, Park Jang-Won, Jang Young-Soo, Kim Eun-Jung
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many authors and the data of multiple registries have suggested that the use of posterior cruciate-substituting (posterior stabilized [PS]) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leads to a higher risk of revision compared with the use of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. The aim of the present prospective, randomized, long-term study was to compare PS and CR TKA with regard to the clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) results; the prevalence of osteolysis; revision rate; and survivorship.
METHODS: This study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
METHODS: This study included a consecutive series of 300 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 63.6 ± 6 years) who underwent simultaneous, bilateral TKA in the same anesthetic session. Each patient received a NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis on 1 side and a NexGen LPS-Flex prosthesis on the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 18 years (range, 17.5 to 19.5 years).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the NexGen CR and LPS-Flex TKA groups at the latest follow-up with regard to the mean Knee Society knee score (93 versus 92 points, respectively); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (19.1 points for both); the University of California Los Angeles activity score (6.1 points for both); range of motion (125° ± 6.1° versus 126° ± 6.5°); radiographic and CT results; and revision rate (6.0% versus 6.3%). No knee had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate at 19.5 years was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 100%) for the NexGen CR-Flex prosthesis and 93.7% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) for the LPS-Flex prosthesis, with revision or aseptic loosening as the end point.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present, long-term (minimum follow-up of 17.5 years) clinical study showed that NexGen CR-Flex and NexGen LPS-Flex implants produced excellent clinical and radiographic results. There was no notable clinical advantage of a NexGen CR-Flex implant over a NexGen LPS-Flex implant.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.