首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis
【2h】

Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

机译:翻修全膝关节置换术中旋转铰链膝关节与约束con突膝关节的荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5–10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24–1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5–10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56–1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5–10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship.
机译:文献中存在争论的是,在进行翻修全膝关节置换术(RTKA)的患者中,旋转铰链膝关节(RHK)或con突膝关节约束(CCK)假体可导致更好的临床结果和生存率。这项荟萃分析的目的是比较RHK和CCK假体的存活率和临床结果。在这项荟萃分析中,我们回顾了评估短期(<5年)或中期(5-10岁)接受RHK或CCK治疗的患者的疼痛和功能评分,运动范围(ROM),并发症和生存率的研究年)的随访。生存时间被认为是进行额外外科手术(例如移除或修订部件)的时间。共有12项研究(一项随机研究和11项非随机研究)符合纳入标准,并进行了详细分析。短期(<5年)存活率的膝部比例(RHK,83/95; CCK,111/148;优势比[OR] 0.52; 95%CI,0.24–1.11; P = 0.09)和评估的中期(5–10年)生存率(RHK,104/128; CCK,196/234; OR 1.05; 95%CI,0.56–1.97; P = 0.88)在RHK和CCK假体之间没有显着差异。此外,ROM(95%CI:-0.40至9.93; P = 0.07)和并发症发生率(95%CI:0.66至2.49; P = 0.46)无显着差异。相比之下,CCK组的疼痛评分(95%CI:0.50至2.73; P = 0.005)和功能评分(95%CI:0.01至2.00; P = 0.05)明显好于RHK组。这项荟萃分析显示,RHK的87.4%和CCK假体在短期内(<5年)存活,而RHK的81.3%和CCK假体在中期(5-10年)内存活,为81.3%。尽管两组均存在显着差异,但我们检测到的标准化平均疼痛和功能评分差异可能难以为患者所接受,并且几乎可以肯定地低于最低临床重要水平。根据当前荟萃分析的结果,在具有合理中期生存率的复杂RTKA中,RHK假体仍然是一种选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号