首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British VolumecBritish Orthopaedic Association , Australian Orthopaedic Association , Canadian Orthopaedic Association . . . [et al] >A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement
【24h】

A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement

机译:对患者专用器械的系统评价和荟萃分析,以改善全膝关节置换术中组件的对齐方式

获取原文
           

摘要

We conducted a meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, to examine the effect of patient-specific instruments (PSI) on radiological outcomes after total knee replacement (TKR) including: mechanical axis alignment and malalignment of the femoral and tibial components in the coronal, sagittal and axial planes, at a threshold of > 3o from neutral. Relative risks (RR) for malalignment were determined for all studies and for RCTs and cohort studies separately.Of 325 studies initially identified, 16 met the eligibility criteria, including eight RCTs and eight cohort studies. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of mechanical axis malalignment with PSI versus conventional TKR across all studies (RR = 0.84, p = 0.304), in the RCTs (RR = 1.14, p = 0.445) or in the cohort studies (RR = 0.70, p = 0.289). The results for the alignment of the tibial component were significantly worse using PSI TKR than conventional TKR in the coronal and sagittal planes (RR = 1.75, p = 0.028; and RR = 1.34, p?=?0.019, respectively, on pooled analysis). PSI TKR showed a significant advantage over conventional TKR for alignment of the femoral component in the coronal plane (RR = 0.65, p?= 0.028 on pooled analysis), but not in the sagittal plane (RR = 1.12, p = 0.437). Axial alignment of the tibial (p = 0.460) and femoral components (p = 0.127) was not significantly different.We conclude that PSI does not improve the accuracy of alignment of the components in TKR compared with conventional instrumentation.
机译:我们进行了一项荟萃分析,包括随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究,以检查患者专用器械(PSI)对全膝关节置换(TKR)后放射学结果的影响,包括:机械轴对准和股骨不对准冠状,矢状和轴状平面中的胫骨组件,距中立点的阈值> 3o。对所有研究以及RCT和队列研究分别确定了错位的相对风险(RR)。在最初确定的325项研究中,有16项符合资格标准,包括8项RCT和8项队列研究。在所有研究(RR = 0.84,p = 0.304),RCT(RR = 1.14,p = 0.445)或队列研究中,PSI机械轴未对准的可能性与传统TKR相比均无显着差异。 (RR = 0.70,p = 0.289)。使用PSI TKR进行胫骨组件对齐的结果在冠状面和矢状面比常规TKR显着更差(合并分析时RR = 1.75,p = 0.028; RR = 1.34,p?=?0.019) 。 PSI TKR在冠状平面上的股骨成分对齐方面显示出明显优于常规TKR的优势(在合并分析中,RR = 0.65,p?= 0.028),而在矢状面中则没有(RR = 1.12,p = 0.437)。胫骨(p = 0.460)和股骨组件(p = 0.127)的轴向对齐没有显着差异。我们得出的结论是,与传统仪器相比,PSI不能提高TKR中组件对齐的准确性。
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号