高屈曲垫片与标准垫片全膝关节置换的早期疗效对照研究

目的 比较采用高屈曲垫片与标准垫片的膝关节假体行全膝关节置换术的早期临床疗效.方法 2005年2月至2008年7月采用GenesisⅡ型膝关节假体行初次全膝关节置换术203例216膝,随机分为高屈曲垫片组(A组,98例107膝)与标准垫片组(B组,105例109膝).术前两组膝关节协会评分(Knee Society score,KSS)系统中的膝评分及膝关节功能评分和膝关节活动度的差异均无统计学意义.术后2周、6周、3个月、6个月、1年及以后每年随访1次.以术后1年为观测终点,观察并发症发生情况,比较两组的KSS膝评分、KSS膝关节功能评分及膝关节活动度.结果 术后1年A组随访91例98膝,B组94例96膝.膝关节主动屈伸活动度A组121.1°±6.9°,B组118.6°±8.1°;膝关节主动屈伸活动度改善度A组17.1°±13.3°,B组16.1°±18.8°;膝关节被动屈伸活动度A组127.2°±7.1°,B组121.0°±7.8°;KSS膝评分A组(86.9±7.6)分,B组(87.5±6.8)分;KSS膝关节功能评分A组(91.2±8.7)分,B组(90.1±9.3)分.其中两组膝关节被动屈伸活动度的差异有统计学意义.术后发生深静脉血栓形成A组4例,B组3例;切口脂肪液化A组3例,B组5例;术后粘连A组2例,B组3例.结论 应用GenesisⅡ型膝关节假体行全膝关节置换术时,选择高屈曲垫片者术后早期膝关节被动屈伸活动范围大于选择标准垫片者,而在主动屈伸活动范围及关节功能评分方面无差异.

Early clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty with high-flex and standard tibial insert

Objective To compare the early results of total knee arthroplasty using high flexion (HF) versus standard posterior-stabilized (PS) prosthesis tibial insert. Methods From February 2005 to July 2008, 203 patients (216 knees) underwent total knee arthroplasty using Genesis Ⅱ prosthesis and were randomly distributed into group A (98 patients with 107 knees, HF insert) or group B (105 patients with 109 knees, PS insert). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the preoperative Knee Society score (KSS) knee score, KSS function score, and range of motion. They were followed-up for 1 year and compared using KSS knee score, KSS function score and range of motion. Results 91 patients (98 knees)were followed up in group A, and 94 patients (96 knees) were followed up in group B. The postoperative knee active range of motion was 121.1°±6.9° in group A, and was 118.6°±8.1° in group B. The improvement of knee active range of motion was 17.1°±13.3° in group A, and was 16.1°±18.8° in group B. The postoperative range of passive motion of group A and group B were 127.2°±7.1° and 121.0°±7.8° respectively. The postoperative KSS knee score was 86.9±7.6 in group A, and was 87.5±6.8 in group B. The postoperative KSS function score was 91.2±8.7 in group A, and was 90.1±9.3 in group B. The range of passive motion of groupA was better than that of group B (P ＜0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other aspects. Complications include deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 4 patients in group A and 3 in group B,wound fat liquefaction, 3 patients in group A and 5 in group B, synarthrophysis, 2 patients in group A and 3 in group B. Conclusion This prospective randomized clinical trial demonstrates no differences between PS and HF in early clinical outcomes, except the range of passive flexion.