Long-term outcomes of one single-design varus valgus constrained versus one single-design rotating hinge in revision knee arthroplasty after over 10-year follow-up.

Tytuł:: Long-term outcomes of one single-design varus valgus constrained versus one single-design rotating hinge in revision knee arthroplasty after over 10-year follow-up.
Autorzy:: Sanz-Ruiz P; Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Calle Doctor Esquerdo nº 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. .; Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University of Madrid, Pza. Ramón y Cajal, Square, University City, 28040, Madrid, Spain. .
León-Román VE; Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Villalba Hospital, Carretera de Alpedrete a Moralzarzal M-608 Km 41, 28400, Collado Villalba, Spain.
Matas-Diez JA; Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Calle Doctor Esquerdo nº 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain.
Villanueva-Martínez M; Avanfi Institute, Orense 32, 28020, Madrid, Spain.
Vaquero J; Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Calle Doctor Esquerdo nº 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain.; Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University of Madrid, Pza. Ramón y Cajal, Square, University City, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Źródło:: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research [J Orthop Surg Res] 2022 Mar 04; Vol. 17 (1), pp. 135. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Mar 04.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, 2006-
MeSH Terms:: Knee Prosthesis*
Reoperation*
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/*methods
Joint Instability/*surgery
Knee Joint/*surgery
Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/instrumentation ; Biomechanical Phenomena/physiology ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis Failure ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome
References:: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004 Mar;12(2):140-3. (PMID: 12937894)
Surgeon. 2021 Dec;19(6):e394-e401. (PMID: 33423922)
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 27;7(3):e012964. (PMID: 28348182)
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Jun;101(4):449-54. (PMID: 25952710)
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Feb 15;99(4):324-330. (PMID: 28196034)
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jan;36(1):362-367.e1. (PMID: 32798182)
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Apr;28(4):570-4. (PMID: 23183277)
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Dec;31(12):2672-2676. (PMID: 27546470)
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Aug;89(8):1735-41. (PMID: 17671012)
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Aug;86(6):813-7. (PMID: 15330020)
Surg Technol Int. 2015 May;26:307-16. (PMID: 26055025)
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):127-31. (PMID: 23743510)
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Sep;29(9):1774-8. (PMID: 25007726)
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jan;32(1):197-201. (PMID: 27554783)
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Nov;131(11):1601-7. (PMID: 21656196)
Knee. 2001 Dec;8(4):269-79. (PMID: 11706689)
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Mar;5(6):135. (PMID: 28462215)
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Dec;141(12):2295-2302. (PMID: 34386837)
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Dec 20;16(1):729. (PMID: 34930375)
J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr;18(3 Suppl 1):51-4. (PMID: 12730930)
Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:167-75. (PMID: 10098042)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Dec;(309):116-23. (PMID: 7994949)
Int Orthop. 2013 Jul;37(7):1279-84. (PMID: 23700251)
J Biomech. 2005 Feb;38(2):197-208. (PMID: 15598446)
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan;31(1):290-4. (PMID: 26253478)
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016 Apr;230(4):265-78. (PMID: 26936959)
Orthopade. 2016 May;45(5):446-51. (PMID: 26526938)
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec;23(8):1204-11. (PMID: 18534467)
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Nov;134(11):1601-7. (PMID: 25179893)
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan-Mar;9(1):29-33. (PMID: 29628680)
Orthopedics. 2016 Jan-Feb;39(1):e140-8. (PMID: 26730689)
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 25;14(3):e0214279. (PMID: 30908538)
Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11 Supple A):93-5. (PMID: 25381417)
Singapore Med J. 2021 Oct 24;:. (PMID: 34688227)
Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:207-15. (PMID: 15116615)
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 May;468(5):1221-8. (PMID: 20058112)
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1224-1231. (PMID: 30039293)
Knee. 2016 Dec;23(6):1083-1088. (PMID: 27825594)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Condylar constrained knee; Instability; Revision knee; Rotating hinge
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20220305 Date Completed: 20220322 Latest Revision: 20220322
Update Code:: 20240105
PubMed Central ID:: PMC8896104
DOI:: 10.1186/s13018-022-03026-3
PMID:: 35246182
: Czasopismo naukowe

Pełny tekst

Background: The appropriate degree of constraint in knee prosthetic revision is unknown, necessitating the use of the lowest possible constraint. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and survival results of revision with rotation hinge knee (RHK) VS constrained condylar constrained knee (CCK) implants.
Methods: Overall, 117 revision case were prospectively reviewed and dividing into two groups based on the degree of constraint used, using only one prosthetic model in each group (61 CCK vs 56 RHK). All implants were evaluated for a minimum of 10 years. Survival of both implants at the end of follow-up, free from revision for any cause, aseptic loosening, and septic cause was compared.
Results: Better results were seen with use of the RHK in joint ranges of (p = 0.023), KSCS (p = 0.015), KSFS (p = 0.043), and KOOS (p = 0.031). About 22.2% of the cases required repeat surgery (11.7% RHK vs 29.6% CCK, p = 0.023). Constrained condylar implants had a significantly lower survival rates than rotating hinge implants (p = 0.005), due to a higher aseptic loosening rate (p = 0.031).
Conclusion: Using a specific RHK design with less rotational constraint has better clinical and survival outcomes than implants with greater rotational constraint, such as one specific CCK.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)

Zaloguj się, aby uzyskać dostęp do pełnego tekstu.

Informacja