Cartilage · 2023
Implantable Shock Absorber Provides Superior Pain Relief and Functional Improvement Compared With High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: A 2-Year Report.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Diduch David R, Crawford Dennis C, Ranawat Anil S, Victor Jan, Flanigan David C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Up to 10 million Americans below the age of 65 years have symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and may not yet be candidates for arthroplasty. In response, a subcutaneous implantable shock absorber (ISA) that unloads the knee has been developed. The safety and effectiveness of ISA treatment were compared against a surgical unloading control, high tibial osteotomy (HTO).
DESIGN: This was a prospective open-label cohort study with a historical control arm. Subjects underwent ISA placement or HTO. The primary endpoint was a composite variable combining pain, function, specific adverse events, integrity of implant or hardware, and conversion to subsequent surgery. Pain and function outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores) were assessed through 24 months. Adverse events were tracked.
RESULTS: The primary endpoint demonstrated superiority of the ISA arm versus the HTO arm, with 85.6% of ISA subjects meeting all criteria compared with 65.5% of HTO subjects. In addition, all 5 secondary endpoints showed superiority of ISA over HTO. At 24 months, the proportions of subjects considered responders were 95.8% (ISA) versus 87.9% (HTO) for pain and 91.7% (ISA) versus 81.3% (HTO) for function. The ISA procedure was well tolerated, with 13.4 days to full weightbearing status versus 58.0 days for the HTO arm.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with an ISA demonstrated noninferiority and superiority versus treatment with HTO in subjects aged 25-65 years who had OA of the medial knee. Treatment with ISA has high clinical benefit and is durable through at least 24 months.
DESIGN: This was a prospective open-label cohort study with a historical control arm. Subjects underwent ISA placement or HTO. The primary endpoint was a composite variable combining pain, function, specific adverse events, integrity of implant or hardware, and conversion to subsequent surgery. Pain and function outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores) were assessed through 24 months. Adverse events were tracked.
RESULTS: The primary endpoint demonstrated superiority of the ISA arm versus the HTO arm, with 85.6% of ISA subjects meeting all criteria compared with 65.5% of HTO subjects. In addition, all 5 secondary endpoints showed superiority of ISA over HTO. At 24 months, the proportions of subjects considered responders were 95.8% (ISA) versus 87.9% (HTO) for pain and 91.7% (ISA) versus 81.3% (HTO) for function. The ISA procedure was well tolerated, with 13.4 days to full weightbearing status versus 58.0 days for the HTO arm.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with an ISA demonstrated noninferiority and superiority versus treatment with HTO in subjects aged 25-65 years who had OA of the medial knee. Treatment with ISA has high clinical benefit and is durable through at least 24 months.