학술논문
Bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty non-inferior to posterior-stabilized prostheses after 5 years: a randomized, controlled trial.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Lavoie F; Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0C1, Canada. fredericlavoiemd@gmail.com.; Denis A; Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0C1, Canada.; Chergui S; Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0C1, Canada.; Al-Shakfa F; Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0C1, Canada.; Sabouret P; Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 1000, rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 0C1, Canada.
Source
Publisher: Springer International Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 9314730 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1433-7347 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09422056 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Purpose: Bicruciate-retaining (BCR) prostheses may improve satisfaction of patient undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to assess whether BCR prostheses provide better clinical outcomes than posterior-stabilized (PS) prostheses.
Materials and Methods: This is a randomized single-blind control trial involving a total of 77 patients with knee osteoarthritis, randomly assigned to undergo TKA with a BCR or PS implant between 2015 and 2019. Mean follow-up period was 39 months. Clinical and demographic data were extracted manually from medical records. Data acquisition included patient demographics, knee range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes via KSS, KOOS, WOMAC, and SF-12 scores.
Results: A total of 38 patients were randomized to the PS group and 39 to the BCR group. At the 5-year follow-up, no statistical differences were noted for knee range of motion or patient-reported outcomes between the two groups, except for a greater knee flexion in the early follow-up period in the PS group. Five adverse events occurred in the BCR group compared to none in the PS group (p = 0.02).
Conclusion: BCR TKA yield similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes 5 years following the intervention compared with PS TKA. The BCR TKA had more complications.
Level of Evidence: I (Randomized Controlled Trial).
(© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).)
Materials and Methods: This is a randomized single-blind control trial involving a total of 77 patients with knee osteoarthritis, randomly assigned to undergo TKA with a BCR or PS implant between 2015 and 2019. Mean follow-up period was 39 months. Clinical and demographic data were extracted manually from medical records. Data acquisition included patient demographics, knee range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes via KSS, KOOS, WOMAC, and SF-12 scores.
Results: A total of 38 patients were randomized to the PS group and 39 to the BCR group. At the 5-year follow-up, no statistical differences were noted for knee range of motion or patient-reported outcomes between the two groups, except for a greater knee flexion in the early follow-up period in the PS group. Five adverse events occurred in the BCR group compared to none in the PS group (p = 0.02).
Conclusion: BCR TKA yield similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes 5 years following the intervention compared with PS TKA. The BCR TKA had more complications.
Level of Evidence: I (Randomized Controlled Trial).
(© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).)