钽金属骨小梁胫骨假体在初次全膝置换术后的中期疗效研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1907 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To compare the postoperative outcomes of the cementless tantalum monoblock tibial component (TMT) with cemented fixation of the tibial component in the primary total knee arthroplasty.Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 54 patients (65 knees) who were treated with TMT and 43 patients (52 knees) with cemented fixation of the tibial component in primary TKA in Xijing Hospital from 2012 to 2015.There were 54 patients (65 knees) in TMT group，including 10 males and 44 females，with an average age of (62.8±5.6) years.There were 43 patients (52 knees) in cemented fixation of the tibial component group，including 8 males and 35 females，with an average age of (64.4±4.8) years.Knee society score(KSS)，range of motion (ROM)，visual analogue scale(VAS)and femorotibial angle(FTA)，radiographic evaluation，postoperative complications and the midterm survivor rate of prosthesis were compared between the two groups before and after operation.KSS，ROM，VAS and FTA were compared TMT group before and after operation.Results All patients had been followed up for 4~7 years，with an average of (5±1.8) years.There was no significant differences in KSS，ROM，VAS and FTA between two groups after operation.There was significant differences in KSS，ROM，VAS and FTA of TMT group before and after operation.1 case underwent revision due to knee instability in TMT group.2 cases underwent partial revision due to periprosthic joint infection (PJI) in cemented fixation of the tibial component group.Early radiolucent line in TMT group gradually disappeared showing good bone ingrowth.Incidence of PJI was lower in TMT group than in cemented fixation of the tibial component group.There was no significant difference in other complications and implant suevivorship between the two groups.Conclusion The application of TMT in the primary TKA has the advantage of better bone ingrowth and bacteriostasis，with good clinical results and better theoretical prosthesis survival rate.However，the long-term effect still needs to be observed and evaluated.

Key words： total knee arthroplasty the tantalum monoblock tibial component cementless cemented

Corresponding Authors: Diwu Weilong

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Wu Qi
	Guo Haitao
	Zhang Jingyi
	Yan Ming
	Diwu Weilong

Cite this article:

Wu Qi,Guo Haitao,Zhang Jingyi, et al. Study on the Medium Term Efficacy of the Tantalum Monoblock Tibial Component in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty[J]. sygkzz, 2023, 29(6): 497-.

URL:

http://www.sygkzz.com/EN/ OR http://www.sygkzz.com/EN/Y2023/V29/I6/497

［1］Indelli PF，Risitano S，Hall KE，et al.Effect of polyethylene conformity on total knee arthroplasty early clinical outcomes［J］.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc，2019，27(4)：1028-1034.
［2］Blanco JF，Diaz A，Melchor FR，et al.Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty［J］.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg，2020，140(2)：239-245.
［3］赵蔚峰，段戡，袁长深，等.膝骨关节炎的非全膝关节置换术手术治疗进展［J］.中国矫形外科杂志，2016，403(17)：1593-1596.
［4］Behery OA，Kearns SM，Rabinowitz JM，et al.Cementless vs cemented tibial fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty［J］.J Arthroplasty，2017，32(5)：1510-1515.
［5］De Martino I，D’Apolito R，Sculco PK，et al.Total knee arthroplasty using cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component：A minimum 10-year follow-up［J］.J Arthroplasty，2016，31(10)：2193-2198.
［6］任博，朱庆生，朱锦宇.骨小梁金属胫骨假体的临床应用新进展［J］.中华关节外科杂志(电子版)，2014，8(1)：116-120.
［7］Tokarski AT，Novack TA，Parvizi J.Is tantalum protective against infection in revision total hip arthroplasty?［J］.Bone Joint J，2015，97-b(1)：45-49.
［8］Schildhauer TA，Robie B，Muhr G，et al.Bacterial adherence to tantalum versus commonly used onhopedic metallic implant materials［J］.J 0rthop Trauma，2006，20(7)：476-484.
［9］Lombardi AV Jr，Berasi CC，Berend KR.Evolution of tibial fixation in total knee arthroplasty［J］.J Arthroplasty，2007，22(4 Suppl 1)：25-29.
［10］Akizuki S，Takizawa T，Horiuchi H.Fixation of a hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated cementless knee prosthesis.Clinical and radiographic evaluation seven years after surgery［J］.J Bone Joint Surg (Br)，2003，85(8)：1123-1127.
［11］Hanzlik JA，Day JS，Rimnac CM，et al.Is there a difference in bone ingrowth in modular versus monoblock porous tantalum tibialtrays?［J］.J Arthmplasty，2015，30(6)：1073-1078.
［12］孙孟帅，曹晓瑞，闫昭，等.非骨水泥型与骨水泥型胫骨平台假体在人工全膝关节置换中的中短期临床疗效比较［J］.中华骨与关节外科杂志，2018，11(12)：897-903.
［13］Koh C K，Zeng I，Ravi S，et al.Periprosthetic joint infection is the main cause of failure for modern knee arthroplasty：An Analysis of 11，134 Knees［J］.Clin Orthop Relat Res，2017，475(9)：2194-2201.
［14］谢川江，石岭，朱纪峰，等.全膝关节置换术后假体周围感染的治疗策略［J］.重庆医学，2021，50(01)：100-104.
［15］Helm AT，Kerin C，Ghalayini SR，et al.Preliminary results of an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component in total knee arthroplasty［J］.J Arthroplasty，2009，24(6)：941-944.
［16］Klein GR，Levine HB，Hartzband MA.Removal of a well-fixed trabecular metal monoblock tibial component［J］.J Arthroplasty，2008，23(4)：619-622.
［17］Meneghini RM，Lewallen DG，Hanssen AD.Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement.Surgical technique［J］.J Bone Joint Surg (Am)，2009，91(Suppl 2)：131-138.
［18］张启栋，郭万首，程立明，等.全膝关节置换术中骨水泥假体与非骨水泥假体生存率比较的系统评价［J］.中国矫形外科杂志，2011，19(1)：26-30.
［19］Kamath AF，Lee GC，Sheth NP，et al.Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty：minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years［J］.J Arthroplasty，2011，26(8)：1390-1395.
［20］Dunbar MJ，Wilson DA，Hennigar AW，et al.Fixation of a trabecular metal knee arthroplasty component.A prospective randomized study［J］.J Bone Joint Surg (Am)，2009，91(7)：1578-1586.