固定平台与旋转平台全膝关节置换术的疗效对比Comparison of the curative effect of total knee arthroplasty with fixed bearing or rotating platform prosthesis
汤发强;流小舟;胡世平;吴宏;郑建章;郭徽灵;颜来鹏;赵建宁;
摘要(Abstract)：
[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。
关键词(KeyWords)： 全膝关节置换;固定平台假体;旋转平台假体
基金项目(Foundation):
作者(Author): 汤发强;流小舟;胡世平;吴宏;郑建章;郭徽灵;颜来鹏;赵建宁;
Email:
DOI:
参考文献(References)：
- [1]Pandher DS.Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty:a prospective randomized study[J].J Arthroplasty,2007,2:298-299.
- [2]Bhattacharya R,Scott CE,Morris HE,et al.Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component[J].Knee,2012,4:348-351.
- [3]Utzschneider S,Paulus A,Datz JC,et al.Influence of design and bearing material on polyethylene wear particle generation in total knee replacement[J].Acta Biomater,2009,7:2495-2502.
- [4]Post ZD,Matar WY,Van De Leur T,et al.Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty:better than a fixed-bearing[J].J Arthroplasty,2010,6:998-1003.
- [5]李彬,温昱,柳达,等.全膝关节置换中固定平台假体和活动平台假体相比较的Meta分析[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2010,18:1863-1867.
- [6]Ball ST,Scanchez HB,Mahoney OM,et al.Fixed versus rotating platform total knee arthroplasty:a prospective,randomized,single-blind study[J].J Arthroplasty,2011,4:531-536.
- [7]Nakamura E,Banks SA,Tanaka A,et al.Three-dimensional tibiofemoral kinematics during deep flexion kneeling in a mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty[J].J Arthroplasty,2009,7:1120-1124.
- [8]刘阳,曹力,李纲,等.固定平台型与活动平台型膝关节假体人工全膝关节置换术后膝前痛的比较研究[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2011,3:266-271.