固定平台与旋转平台全膝关节置换术的疗效对比

[目的]评价膝关节置换固定平台假体(fixed bearing,FB)和旋转平台假体(rotating platforms,RP)的疗效。[方法]64例患者随机接受FB或RP假体的全膝关节置换手术。临床和放射学随访至少2年。HSS评分评定膝关节功能及I-S指数进行髌骨评分;SF-12评分表评估生理及心理状况。术后3、6个月,1、2年复查X线片及上述各项评估。[结果]FB组患者与RP组患者各个随访时间点HSS评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者末次随访时年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)、疼痛评价、膝关节屈曲活动度、HSS总分、I-S指数及SF-12生理、心理状况比较,均无显著性意义(P>0.05)。对术前I-S指数和术后出现局部膝前痛(HSS疼痛评分<15)的比较,发现高位髌骨患者中术后膝前痛的发生率较低位及正常髌骨患者的发生率均升高。[结论]RP假体至少在安全性和有效性上等同于FB假体。使用两种假体均能获得满意的手术效果。     

TC-Dynamic膝关节假体在膝关节置换中的应用

[目的]探讨TC-Dynamic膝关节假体在膝关节置换中的应用.[方法]自2005年10月～ 20l0年12 月,采用TC-Dynamic膝关节假体行TKA共40例(50膝)与Depuy P.F.C.Sigma膝关节假体行TKA 40例(45膝)进行临床对比研究.对比两组术前、术后KSS评分、功能评分、Feller评分、测量膝关节ROM、术后膝前疼痛及髌骨弹响.[结果]两组术后与术前的KSS评分、功能评分、Feller评分及膝关节ROM比较,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组术后KSS评分、功能评分、Feller评分、膝关节ROM及比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组手术用时TC-Dynamic膝关节假体较Depuy P.F.C.Sigma膝关节假体组平均少10 min.TC-Dynamic膝关节假体组膝前疼痛1例(1膝),髌骨弹响1例(1膝),Depuy P.F.C.Sigma膝关节假体组膝前疼痛2例(2膝),髌骨弹向3例(3膝).两组术后随访X线片观察膝关节假体位置、力线、固定性能等均显示良好,无松动、透亮线等异常表现.[结论]使用TC-Dynamic膝关节假体行TKA临床疗效满意,术后膝关节功能良好.     

固定平台型和移动平台型假体全膝关节置换术后临床效果的分析比较

[目的]对应用移动平台型假体和固定平台后稳定型假体全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty,TKA)后进行随访对照研究,分析这两种假体TKA术后的临床效果.[方法]对2003年1月～2004年12月间诊断为膝骨性关节炎的患者,随机应用固定平台后稳定型假体(scorpio)和移动平台型假体(Gemini MK Ⅱ)行TKA手术.记录术前及随访时术膝的膝关节评分、疼痛评分、功能评分、髌骨评分和膝关节活动度,及股骨角、胫骨角、膝外翻角、胫骨平台后倾角、髌骨高度.[结果]术前固定平台组和移动平台组的年龄、体重指数、患膝内翻畸形、最大屈曲度及屈曲挛缩度均无统计学差异(P＞0.05).术后平均随访31个月,固定平台组和移动平台组的术前术后膝关节评分、疼痛评分、功能评分、髌骨评分均无统计学差异(P＞0.05),都明显改善了患膝的症状和功能.固定平台组和移动平台组的术后最大屈曲度(108°±9.3°,99.5°±10.1°)间存在显著性差异(P＜0.05).两组的股骨角、胫骨角、膝外翻角、胫骨平台后倾角、术前术后髌骨高度无显著性差异(P＞0.05).[结论]平均随访31个月时固定平台后稳定型假体和移动平台假体TKA均明显改善了患膝的症状和功能,两组的膝关节评分、功能评分、疼痛评分、髌骨评分及X线片检查评价均无显著性差异.固定平台组的术后最大屈曲度大于移动平台组的术后最大屈曲度.     

固定平台与旋转平台假体全膝关节置换术后早期疗效的回顾性观察

目的回顾性观察PFC固定平台假体和RP旋转平台假体2种人工膝关节置换系统治疗成人膝关节骨性关节炎术后早期疗效。方法 54例(58膝)膝关节骨性关节炎行全膝关节置换术(TKA),其中固定平台组28例(30膝);旋转平台组26例(28膝)。结果所有患者均获3~54个月随访,术后切口愈合良好,均能直立行走。末次随访时固定平台组、旋转平台组膝关节评分(HSS)与膝关节活动度(ROM)分别为(87.20±8.12)、(86.34±6.39)分和(106.73±6.24)°、(107.12±4.58)°,与术前比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 PFC与RP假体系统全膝关节置换术是治疗成人晚期膝关节骨性关节炎的有效方法,早期假体生存率较满意,术后两者对膝关节功能改善差异无统计学意义。长期的假体生存率需要进一步研究观察。     

单半径与多半径假体全膝关节置换术治疗重度膝关节骨性关节炎的疗效比较

目的比较单半径假体与多半径假体全膝关节置换术治疗重度膝关节骨性关节炎的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析自2012-08—2016-05诊治的60例严重膝关节骨关节炎,30例采用单半径假体行全膝关节置换术治疗(单半径组),30例采用多半径假体行全膝关节置换术治疗(多半径组)。比较2组术后1、3、6个月膝关节屈曲90°时膝前痛VAS评分,以及术后2年KSS膝评分、KSS功能评分、膝关节活动度。结果 60例均获得随访,随访时间3~5(4.2±1.4)年,单半径组术后1、3、6个月膝关节屈曲90°时膝前痛VAS评分,术后2年的KSS膝评分、KSS功能评分、膝关节活动度优于多半径组,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。结论相比于多半径假体,单半径假体全膝关节置换术治疗重度膝关节骨性关节炎具有术后疼痛更轻、膝关节活动度更大、功能恢复更好等优势。     

旋转平台假体在全膝关节置换术中的应用及早期疗效观察

[目的]观察旋转平台人工膝关节置换术的临床疗效.[方法]对79例患者93膝行TKA,采用正中切口髌旁内侧入路,安装假体,膝关节均未进行髌骨置换.术后复查X线片观察假体固定情况,采用美国膝关节学会评分(KSS评分)评定膝评分及膝功能评分,观察并发症发生情况.[结果]本组平均随访时间(33.61±7.34)个月(24～48个月).末次随访时,关节总活动度明显增加,由术前68.76°增加至术后107.53°(P相似文献   

Genesis Ⅱ与PFC两种假体全膝关节置换术后膝前痛的比较研究

目的 探讨全膝关节置换术后膝前痛与髌骨置换及假体设计的关系,GenesisⅡ与PFC两种股骨假体与髌骨之间的友好性.方法 回顾性分析由同一组高年资医生施行初次全膝关节置换术的145例(145膝)骨关节炎患者的临床资料.均采用后十字韧带替代型全膝关节假体,髌骨置换74例,其中32例使用GenesisⅡ假体、42例使用PFC假体;髌骨未置换71例,其中38例使用GenesisⅡ假体、33例使用PFC假体.术后评估美国特种外科医院(Hospital for Special Surgery,HSS)膝关节评分、髌骨评分、髌骨功能评分、膝关节活动度、膝前痛评分、满意度和X线片上髌骨倾斜和半脱位情况.结果 随访144例,随访时间21～43个月,平均33个月.术后膝前痛发生率:髌骨置换组与未置换组的差异无统计学意义,组内使用GenesisⅡ假体与PFC假体的差异有统计学意义.使用PFC假体者4例再次手术.功能评分:髌骨置换组及髌骨未置换组中使用GenesisⅡ假体与PFC假体术后HSS评分、活动度、满意度的差异均无统计学意义,而术后髌骨评分及髌骨功能评分的差异有统计学意义.结论 术后膝前痛的发生率与是否置换髌骨无关,而与假体设计有关;GenesisⅡ假体与髌骨的关系更加友好.     

活动平台与固定平台全膝关节置换的比较研究

目的评价人工全膝关节置换术中使用活动平台和固定平台假体治疗膝骨关节炎的早期疗效。方法对2009年3月至2011年3月收治的诊断为膝骨关节炎的患者,随机应用活动平台型假体和固定平台型假体行全膝关节置换（total knee arthroplasty,TKA）手术。记录术前及随访时术膝的膝关节评分、疼痛评分、功能评分、髌骨评分和膝关节活动度,以及股骨角、胫骨角、膝外翻角、胫骨平台后倾角、截骨高度。结果术前活动平台组和固定平台组的年龄、体重指数、患膝内翻畸形、最大屈曲角度及屈曲挛缩度均无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。术后平均随访26个月,活动平台组和固定平台组的术前术后膝关节评分、疼痛评分、功能评分、髌骨评分均无统计学差异（P〉0.05）,都明显地改善了患膝的症状和功能。活动平台组和固定平台组的术后最大屈曲度间存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）。两组的股骨角、胫骨角、膝外翻角、胫骨平台后倾角、截骨高度和术前术后髌骨高度无显著性差异（P〉0.05）。结论活动平台型假体和固定平台型假体TKA均明显改善了患膝的症状和功能,两组的膝关节评分、功能评分、疼痛评分、髌骨评分及X线检查评价差异均无统计学意义。固定平台组的术后最大屈曲度大于活动平台组的最大屈曲度。     

固定与旋转平台膝关节假体治疗重度膝外翻骨性关节炎的疗效比较

目的比较固定与旋转平台膝关节假体治疗重度膝外翻骨性关节炎的临床疗效。方法对76例接受治疗的重度膝外翻骨性关节炎患者按照膝关节假体类型分为观察组(应用旋转平台假体,36例)和对照组(应用固定平台假体,40例)。比较术后两组患者解剖学参数(股骨角、胫骨角、平台后倾角、髌骨高度、膝外翻角)、膝关节屈曲角度和KSS评分情况。结果患者均获得随访,时间6～36个月。两组患者术后股骨角、胫骨角、平台后倾角、髌骨高度以及膝外翻角指标比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。术后膝关节屈曲角度观察组高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。术后KSS评分两组比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论旋转平台假体能够有效恢复膝关节屈曲角度,纠正膝关节外翻畸形。     

全膝关节置换术中旋转平台假体与固定平台假体短期随访对比(英文)

[目的]观察对照全膝关节置换术中旋转平台假体与固定平台假体的早期效果。[方法]从2011年8月~2012年12月收集了120位患者的样本,包括162例在此期间进行了膝关节置换术的膝关节。膝关节假体(旋转平台与固定平台)是通过随机抽样选出的。对所有患者在手术前与手术后1、6、12个月进行评估,全部使用标准评分方法 (美国膝关节协会评分,功能评分,活动度)。[结果]A组66位患者共85膝使用的是旋转平台假体,平均年龄为(63.13±7.18)岁。B组54位患者共77膝使用的是固定平台假体。平均年龄为(61.35±6.75)岁。平均随访时间为(8.25±6.22)个月。全膝关节置换术固定平台假体与旋转平台假体的平均膝关节协会评分在1年之后分别为(84.5±13.8)分和(82.2±15.7)分,平均膝关节功能评分在1年之后分别为(70.3±20.5)分和(71.4±19.3)分,全膝置换的固定平台假体与旋转平台假体平均活动度在一年之后分别为(103.2±13.5)°和(104.3±13.7)°。两组的术后效果并无差异(P0.05)。[结论]在旋转平台假体与固定平台假体设计中,当前研究表示没有明显的临床性、功能性和影像学上的差异。研究表明,控制其他可变因素,不论使用旋转平台假体或者固定平台假体设计,都不会在短期随访时间内影响到效果。     

The Long-Term Results of Simultaneous High-Flexion Mobile-Bearing and Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasties Performed in the Same Patients

Background

Our study determined the long-term clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography scanning results of high-flexion mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the same younger patients. In addition, the survivorship and complication rates of both groups were evaluated.

TC-Dynamic后稳定型人工全膝关节系统术后近期疗效分析

目的探讨应用TC-Dynamic后稳定型人工全膝关节系统行全膝关节置换术(totalknee arthroplasty,TKA)的近期临床效果,评价其临床应用的可行性、安全性和有效性。方法2003年9月～2004年3月,应用TC-Dynamic人工全膝关节系统行TKA10例12膝(TC-Dynamic组),术前膝关节KSS(kneesocietyscore)评分为16.08±11.58分,功能评分为13.75±19.79分,膝关节活动度(rangeofmotion,ROM)为75.00±26.46°。同期使用Scorpio假体行TKA30例50膝(Scorpio组),术前膝关节KSS评分为19.48±9.67分,功能评分为3.16±19.82分,膝关节ROM为80.80±22.82°。比较两组患者术后疼痛缓解情况、KSS评分和功能评分改善情况,以及膝关节ROM的提高程度。结果所有患者术后获随访40～210d,平均130d。TC-Dynamic组术后KSS评分为88.83±4.04分,较术前改善72.75±14.47分,功能评分为79.17±5.15分,较术前改善65.42±19.47分;ROM为107.92±11.57°,较术前提高32.92±32.22°。Scorpio组术后KSS评分为85.68±7.36分,较术前改善66.20±10.44分,功能评分为71.40±12.70分,较术前改善68.24±25.35分;ROM为109.20±11.13°,较术前提高28.40±26.41°。术后各指标组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.01)。两组患者术后X线片均示下肢力线良好,假体位置满意,无透亮线及任何松动迹象。结论TC-Dynamic后稳定型膝关节假体设计合理,术后近期效果良好;但远期疗效仍需大样本长期随访观察。TKA中正确的下肢力线、合理截骨和软组织平衡及屈曲伸直间隙平衡等,是获得良好临床效果和保证假体长期存活的关键。     

固定平台与旋转平台假体用于外翻膝的早期疗效观察

目的:比较外翻膝人工全膝关节置换术应用旋转平台和固定平台两型假体的早期临床疗效。方法:选取2011年1月至2013年12月吉林大学第一医院骨关节外科由同一医师进行初次人工膝关节置换的17例(23膝)进行回顾性随访研究,其中男2例,女15例;年龄48～75岁,平均61.5岁。术前诊断为骨性关节炎14例(19膝),类风湿性关节炎3例(4膝),所有膝关节有外翻畸形。其中9例(12膝)使用固定平台型假体(PFC Sigma),8例(11膝)使用旋转平台型假体(PFC Sigma RP).术前和术后随访行KSS、HSS、WOMAC评分,测量关节活动度、胫股角等指标,进行统计学分析。结果:所有患者获随访,时间6～36个月,平均25个月。两组患者膝外翻畸形均得到矫正,术后末次随访的KSS、HSS、WOMAC评分及膝关节活动度、胫股角较术前明显改善(P<0.01).其中固定平台组和旋转平台组在术后KSS、HSS、WOMAC评分以及胫骨角、膝关节活范围改善度方面比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);而术后末次随访膝关活动范围固定平台组(101.8±8.8)°与旋转平台组(108.4±7.2)°差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).旋转平台组没有发现垫片脱位,两组术后均无感染、腓总神经麻痹、脱位、膝关节不稳等并发症发生,X线检查未见假体骨溶解及松动发生。结论:外翻膝人工全膝关节置换术使用旋转平台和固定平台型假体均能获得满意的早期临床效果,两者的近期临床疗效比较无明显差异。     

活动和固定衬垫型假体在全膝关节表面置换术中的早期临床比较研究

目的通过文献回顾以及病例观察比较活动衬垫型假体和固定衬垫型假体在人工膝关节表面置换中的早期应用情况。方法2003年2月至2004年10月共对94例骨关节炎患者行初次全膝关节表面置换术。全部病例选用不保留后交叉韧带骨水泥型假体。A组(固定衬垫型假体)29例患者,30侧关节(20侧选用DePuy假体,10侧选用Centerpulse假体)。B组(活动衬垫型假体)65例患者,68侧关节,全部选用Centerpulse假体。A,B两组术前资料进行HSS评分、年龄、性别等可比性分析。术后6周、3个月、6个月、1年分别随访,进行HSS评分、患者满意度调查等评价。所得数据采用SPSS10.0软件系统进行统计学分析。结果A、B两组术后6周、3个月、6个月、1年所得HSS评分进行阶段统计学分析,所得P值分别为0.414,0.108,0.235,0.452,两组术后HSS评分差异无统计学意义。术后1年,两组膝关节活动度比较A组,平均ROM为108°(95°~118°);B组,平均ROM为107°(90°~120°),两组关节活动度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年,A组患者主诉4侧关节(13.7%)仍有疼痛,B组9侧关节(13.1%)主诉患肢仍有疼痛;A组90%患者对手术效果满意,B组88%患者对手术效果满意。结论本组研究结果尚未证实活动衬垫型假体相对于固定衬垫型假体在早期人工关节表面置换术后的优越性。     

In Vivo Kinematic Comparison Between Mobile-Bearing and Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty During Step-Up Activity

Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) expects high conformity and low contact stress. It is designed to correct the rotational mismatch between femoral and tibial components. We examined the difference in weight-bearing knee kinematics in patients with mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing TKA performing step-up activities. We randomly assigned 40 knees (37 patients) to mobile-bearing TKA (n = 20) or fixed-bearing TKA (n = 20). Using fluoroscopic imaging we evaluated knee kinematics during step-up activity one year after surgery. The total extent of rotation was not different for the two TKAs. Due to the axial rotation of the polyethylene insert, patients with mobile-bearing TKA had a wider range of absolute axial rotation. The position of the medial and the lateral condyles was significantly more posterior in the fixed-bearing TKA. There were only minor kinematic differences between the two TKAs. The polyethylene insert in the mobile-bearing TKA moved as designed especially with respect to the self-alignment feature.     

Comparison of High-Flexion Fixed-Bearing and High-Flexion Mobile-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasties—A Prospective Randomized Study

Background

There is none, to our knowledge, about comparison of high-flexion fixed-bearing and high-flexion mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the same patients. The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical results; radiographic and computed tomographic scan results; and the survival rate of a high-flexion mobile-bearing TKA is better than that of a high-flexion fixed-bearing TKA.

Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty

Study findings have been inconsistent in confirming advantages for mobile-bearing compared with fixed-bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty. Therefore, we did meta-analysis of trials comparing outcomes from using the 2 different designs. Of 5670 citations identified for screening, 10 trials reporting 620 participants (906 knees) at final follow-up were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in the American Knee Society Knee Scores, Knee Society Functional and Pain Scores, range of motion, occurrence of radiolucent lines, prosthesis-related complications, and participant preference. The results suggest that the mobile-bearing prosthesis does not offer clinical or radiologic advantage over the fixed-bearing prosthesis.     

Differences in patellofemoral contact stresses between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties: a dynamic in vitro measurement

Introduction  Anterior knee pain is one of the most common problems after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Mobile-bearing designs should improve patella tracking with a reduced rate of patella tilt as well as reduced patellofemoral contact stresses and improve knee flexion. The aim of this dynamic in vitro investigation was to evaluate the changes of patellofemoral contact stresses after TKA using fixed and mobile-bearing designs. Materials and methods  Seven knee specimens were mounted into a knee simulator imitating an isokinetic extension of the knee. The patellofemoral contact was measured before and after tricompartimental TKA with fixed and mobile-bearing designs using pressure-sensitive films. Contact stresses were measured from 120° knee flexion to full extension with a simulated force of the quadriceps muscle up to 1,200 N. Additionally all measurements were performed with simulated co-contraction of the hamstrings muscles. Results  Fixed-bearing TKA increases patellofemoral contact stresses compared to physiologic conditions. After patella resurfacing, contact stresses increase even more. By changing the prosthesis design to mobile bearing, maximum contact stress was measured to be punctual higher than in fixed-bearing implants. In the interval between 0°–30° and 70°–105° of flexion, obviously lower pressures were evaluated for the mobile-bearing design. With cocontraction of the hamstrings, a lower contact stress of the mobile-bearing design was evident for the complete measurement of the knee extension. Conclusion  An increase of patellofemoral contact stresses after patellar resurfacing in TKA could be demonstrated. This outcome implicates a higher risk of patellofemoral complications. The mobile-bearing design showed evidently lower patellofemoral contact stresses than the fixed-bearing design.     

Tibiofemoral force following total knee arthroplasty: comparison of four prosthesis designs in vitro.

Despite ongoing evolution in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prosthesis design, restricted flexion continues to be common postoperatively. Compressive tibiofemoral force during flexion is generated through the interaction between soft tissues and prosthesis geometry. In this study, we compared the compressive tibiofemoral force in vitro of four commonly used prostheses: fixed-bearing PCL (posterior cruciate ligament)-retaining (PFC), mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized (PS), posterior-stabilized with a High Flex femoral component (HF), and mobile-bearing PCL-sacrificing (LCS). Fourteen fresh-frozen cadaver knee joints were tested in a passive motion rig, and tibiofemoral force measured using a modified tibial baseplate instrumented with six load cells. The implants without posterior stabilization displayed an exponential increase in force after 90 degrees of flexion, while PS implants maintained low force throughout the range of motion. The fixed-bearing PFC prosthesis displayed the highest peak force (214 +/- 68 N at 150 degrees flexion). Sacrifice of the PCL decreased the peak force to a level comparable with the LCS implant. The use of a PCL-substituting post and cam system reduced the peak force up to 78%, irrespective of whether it was a high-flex or a standard PS knee. However, other factors such as preoperative range of motion, knee joint kinematics, soft tissue impingement, and implantation technique play a role in postoperative knee function. The present study suggests that a posterior-stabilized TKA design might be advantageous in reducing soft tissue tension in deep flexion. Further research is necessary to fully understand all factors affecting knee flexion after TKA.