Early efficacy of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2020.04.021

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To compare the differences of early clinical efficacy between posterior cruciate-substituting(PS) prosthesis and posterior cruciate-retaining(CR) prosthesis for the patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty(TKA). Methods From August 2015 to July 2018, 67 patients who underwent TKA were retrospectively evaluated. There were 32 PS prosthesis and 35 CR prosthesis. The operation time, postoperative drainage blood volume, hospital stay, range of knee joint motion, and Hospital for Special Surgery knee score (HSS) were recorded. Results The operation time in PS and CR groups was (91.77±6.53) min and (87.48±5.83) min, respectively, with statistical significant differences between the two groups (P<0.05). The postoperative drainage blood volume in PS and CR groups was (315.81±18.34) mL and (203.67±14.59) mL, respectively, with statistical significant difference (P<0.05). There were no differences between the two groups of the hospital stay, range of knee joint motion and HSS (P>0.05). Conclusion The early clinical efficacy of both PS and CR prosthesis after TKA was satisfactory. The choice of TKA prosthesis type should be based on patient conditions and surgeon's experiences.

Key words: total knee arthroplasty, posterior cruciate-retaining, posterior cruciate-substituting

CLC Number:

R687.4

Zeng Zheng, Liu Yang, Wang Bing. Early efficacy of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty[J]. Journal of Capital Medical University, 2020, 41(4): 622-626.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

URL: https://journal03.magtech.org.cn/Jweb_sdykdxxb/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2020.04.021

https://journal03.magtech.org.cn/Jweb_sdykdxxb/EN/Y2020/V41/I4/622

References 24

[1]	Da Costa B R, Reichenbach S, Keller N, et al. Retracted:Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis:a network meta-analysis[J]. Lancet, 2017,387(10033):2093-2105.
[2]	毛小成,赵枫,曹杰,等. 半月板旋转型人工膝关节置换中后交叉韧带保留与切除的分析比较[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2009,24(8):750-751.
[3]	Koh Y G, Son J, Kwon S K,et al. Preservation of kinematics with posterior cruciate-, bicruciate- and patient-specific bicruciate-retaining prostheses in total knee arthroplasty by using computational simulation with normal knee model[J]. Bone Joint Res,2017,6(9):557-565.
[4]	凌卓彦,李柳炳,董启榕. 全膝关节置换术中切除后交叉韧带的优缺点[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2009,24(10):958-960.
[5]	柴伟,任鹏,陈继营,等. 旋转平台后交叉韧带保留型与替代型人工膝关节置换术短期疗效比较[J]. 中华骨与关节外科杂志,2015,8(4):327-331.
[6]	Mazzucchelli L, Deledda D, Rosso F, et al. Cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting ultracongruent insert[J]. Ann Transl Med,2016,4(1):2-8.
[7]	陈奇,陈智,眭杰,等. GEMINI PS全膝关节置换术的初期临床应用[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2012,27(8):689-691.
[8]	潘利平,曹永平. 膝关节置换术后的关节摩擦音或弹响[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志,2015,23(3):254-259.
[9]	黄迅,马金忠. 后交叉韧带保留型和后稳定型全膝关节置换术的临床疗效比较研究[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2011,26(7):592-594.
[10]	罗世兴,赵劲民,苏伟. 人工全膝关节假体选择的研究进展[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志,2010,24(3):301-303.
[11]	刘军,甄平,周胜虎,等. 类风湿关节炎行关节置换术围手术期管理的研究进展[J]. 中国骨伤,2017,30(11):1067-1073.
[12]	Indelli P F, Marcucci M, Graceffa A, et al. Primary posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty:analysis of different instrumentation[J]. J Orthop Surg Res,2014,9(1):1-5.
[13]	刘扬波,袁健东,陈成帷,等. 改良型股骨假体对降低初次后稳定型全膝关节置换术后髌骨弹响综合征发生率的病例对照研究[J]. 中国骨伤,2014,27(4):278-282.
[14]	孙长鲛,周勇刚. 膝关节置换术后失败的原因分析[J]. 中华关节外科杂志:电子版,2014,8(5):652-658.
[15]	Bueehel F F Sr. Long-term follow-up after mobile-bearing total knee repalement[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2002,404:40-50.
[16]	Yagishita K, Muneta T, Ju Y J, et al. High-flex posterior crutiate-retaining vs posterior crudiate-substituing designs in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty:a prospective, randonmized study[J]. J Arthroplasty. 2012,27(3):368-374.
[17]	Chaudhary R, Beaupre L A, Johnston D W. Knee range of motion during the first two years after use of posterior cruciate-stabilizing or posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses. A randomized clinical trial[J]. J bone Joint Surg Am, 2008,90(12):2579-2586.
[18]	Luo H G, Zhu W, Zhang Z X. Comparison of Outcomes After Bilateral Simultaneous Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Posterior-Substituting Versus Cruciate-Retaining Prostheses[J].Saudi Med J, 2015, 36(2):190-195.
[19]	Kim Y H, Choi Y, Kwon O R, et al. Functional outcome and range of motion of high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prostheses. A prospective randomized study[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2009, 91(4):753-760.
[20]	Mayne A, Harshavardhan H P, Johnston L R, et al. Cruciate retaining compared with posterior stabilized Nexgen total knee arthroplasty:results at 10 years in a matched cohort[J]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2017,99(8):602-606.
[21]	Jiang C, Liu Z, Wang Y, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament retention versus posterior stabilization for total knee arthroplasty:a meta-analysis[J]. Plos One, 2016, 11(1):e0147865.
[22]	Seon J K, Park J K, Shin Y J, et al. Comparisons of kinematics and range of motion in hige-flexion total knee arthroplasty:cruciate retaining vs. substituting designs[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2011, 19(12):2016-2022.
[23]	Rand J A,Trousdale R T,Ilstrup D M,et al.Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am,2003,85(2):259-265.
[24]	Abdel M P,Morrey M E,Jensen M R,et al. Increased long-term survival of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-stabilizing total knee replacements[J].J Bone Joint Surg Am,2011,93(22):2072-2078.