Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 13  No. 12 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 77171 , 7 pages
10.12677/ACM.2023.13122691

单髁置换术治疗膝关节骨性关节炎 研究进展

李宝鑫1,李钊伟2*

1青海大学研究生院,青海 西宁

2青海大学附属医院创伤骨科,青海 西宁

收稿日期:2023年11月13日;录用日期:2023年12月7日;发布日期:2023年12月14日

摘要

随着中国老龄化的加剧及社会经济的发展,单髁关节置换术(Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, UKA)作为保存骨量及韧带来代替全膝关节置换术的方式,UKA再次引发人们的关注。虽然UKA是一个优秀的手术方案,但是在UKA和全膝关节置换这两种手术方案选择之间及UKA和胫骨高位截骨这两种手术方案选择中,各种文献中存在多方面的争议,本文就UKA治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的进展做一文献综述。

关键词

单髁置换术,全膝置换术,膝关节骨性关节炎,胫骨,截骨术,翻修术

Advances in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis with Unicompartmental Knee Replacement

Baoxin Li1, Zhaowei Li2*

1Graduate School of Qinghai University, Xining Qinghai

2Trauma Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Qinghai University, Xining Qinghai

Received: Nov. 13th, 2023; accepted: Dec. 7th, 2023; published: Dec. 14th, 2023

ABSTRACT

With the aggravation of population aging in China and the development of social economy, Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has attracted renewed attention as a surgical method to preserve bone mass and ligaments as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty. Although UKA is an excellent surgical option, there are various controversies in the literature regarding the choice between UKA and total knee arthroplasty, as well as between UKA and high tibial osteotomy. This article aims to provide a literature review on the progress of UKA in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

Keywords:Unicompartmental Knee Replacement, Total Knee Replacement, Knee Osteoarthritis, Tibia, Osteotomy, Revision

Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

骨关节炎(Osteoarthropathy, OA)是最常见的退行性疾病之一,通常女性比男性更严重。由于现代人的肥胖、缺少锻炼以及关节损伤的患病率的增加,使得OA的患病率逐年升高。OA导致的关节疼痛会导致功能限制、睡眠差、疲劳、情绪低落和降低生活独立性 [1] 。相比于同性别及同年龄的人,患有OA的人会有更高的生活成本及更少的生产力 [1] 。世卫组织风湿病科学小组估计,世界上60岁或以上的人口中有10%的人出现了由于OA导致的临床问题 [2] 。而在中国超过60岁的人群中大约有8.1%的人群出现了OA的症状 [3] 。对于膝关节骨性关节炎的治疗,一度倾向于全膝关节置换术(Total knee arthroplasty, TKA)。但由于单髁假体经过近50年的发展,目前单髁置换术(Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, UKA)已经成为治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的热门方案。

2. 单髁置换术(UKA)的理论及发展

膝关节是下肢的中间关节,具有复杂的生物力学,它允许股骨、胫骨和髌骨之间的活动。在正常情况下,这三个关节部件在静态载荷和移动过程中的载荷力呈正态分布。但是OA可能影响膝关节的任何一个或所有三个间室,但三分之一的OA患者仅影响一个间室。在多达50%的患者中,膝关节的关节炎改变主要发生在关节的内侧室,较少发生在外侧或髌股关节 [4] 。

并且一项断面研究表示:早期膝关节OA患者的内侧间室比外侧间室退行性变更严重,膝关节OA患者内侧软骨厚度明显薄于外侧(2.13 mm vs. 2.34 mm, p < 0.0001) [5] 。正是由于大量病患表现出孤立的内侧间室的退变后,UKA的概念被提出。自1954年,McIntosh和Hunter [6] 进行了第一次内侧单间室位置的置换术,随后在20世纪60年代,McKeever [7] 尝试使用胫骨平台假体。在20世纪70年代早期,Bucholz [7] 开发了第一个由类似雪橇一样的双凸金属和一个扁平的高密度聚乙烯组成的UKA,并且安装了这一代的假体的病人中有大约80%的患者表现出良好的功能 [8] 。但是这一代假体引起了很大的争议,随后在1976年Walker、Ranawat和Insall设计了一种类似股骨髁形状的钴铬钼合金和由高密度聚乙烯制成的胫骨假体,并且胫骨端的形状与股骨假体的冠状曲线一致,这种假体能够允许120˚屈曲 [9] 。之后在原有的基础上提出了在股骨假体和胫骨假体之间,插入了一个没有约束的高密度聚乙烯“半月板”,这便是最初的牛津单髁 [10] 。之后为了提供更好的疗效,UKA一路发展至今。

3. 单髁置换术(UKA)的适应症与禁忌症

适应症:① 只有内侧或外侧间隔室有关节炎或骨坏死;② 体重 < 82公斤(181磅);③ 年龄 > 60岁。④ 患者应在休息时疼痛轻微,膝关节活动范围 > 90˚,屈曲畸形 < 5˚,内外翻畸形 < 15˚,并且可以被动矫正 [11] 。

禁忌症:① 前叉韧带损伤;② 对侧间室及髌股关节退行性变较重的患者;③ 年龄 < 60岁者;③BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2者;④ 对于膝关节活动要求较高;⑤ 膝关节炎性关节病(如类风湿性关节炎等 [11] 。

但是最近几年,UKA的适应症不断扩大,其中前交叉韧带(ACL)损伤的患者、年轻患者和肥胖患者并非绝对是禁忌症。一项研究表明在没有临床膝关节不稳定的情况下,有完整前交叉韧带的UKA和没有完整前交叉韧带的UK的翻修率没有差异。仅有5例(7%)人工全膝关节置换术失败,均改行全膝关节置换术。在ACL受损的膝关节中,UKA的6年存活率为94%,而在前交叉韧带完好的膝关节中,UKA的存活率为93%。研究表明前交叉韧带受损并不影响UKA的存活率 [12] 。但是该项研究的随访时间较短,应进行更多研究,进一步完善ACL对UKA的影响。在平均年龄为53岁(年龄范围30~60岁)并且使用UKA假体的患者,随访其10年生存率为94.5%,12年生存率为88.4%,最后一次随访时膝关节协会评分为94.0分,平均功能评分为93.7分 [13] 。Heyse等人 [14] 报告了年龄在60岁以下的患者中假体良好的生存和功能。其中10年存活率为93.5%,15年存活率为86.3%。而对于肥胖患者,Cavaignac [15] 等人根据体重指数(<和≥30 kg/m2)和体重(<和≥82 kg)对212名UKA患者进行了平均12年的回顾性研究,两个体重亚组和两个BMI亚组的10年生存率相似。

4. 单髁置换术(UKA)的并发症

UKA常见的并发症包括聚乙烯磨损、OA进展到邻近间室、无菌性松动、脱位、假体周围骨折和感染。基于文献的综合回顾,无菌性松动、聚乙烯磨损和OA进展是UKA最常见的并发症 [16] [17] [18] [19] 。塞拉和他的同事 [17] 报告说,175个膝关节中,将UKA修改为TKA的原因中有55%是假体松动,有34%是OA进展。Bergeson等人 [20] 也得出结论,无菌性松动和OA进展是UKA失败的主要因素。并且UKA术后对聚乙烯磨损,可能产生一些聚乙烯颗粒,这些颗粒可能通过对软骨、半月板和滑膜的有害影响而在OA的发展中发挥作用 [21] 。有文献指出聚乙烯磨损颗粒增加了促炎细胞因子和介质(IL-1β、IL-6、肿瘤坏死因子-α、一氧化氮和前列腺素E2)的产生。这些促炎细胞因子和介质能够促进所有类型细胞的凋亡 [21] 。并且术中的过度矫正内翻或外翻畸形可导致OA的进展。研究发现术后胫骨–股骨角度与假体失败率有显著关系。当术后胫股角度外翻4˚~6˚时假体存活率最高,≥外翻10˚时存活率最低 [22] 。并发症中的假体周围关节感染是一种罕见且严重的并发症。目前可用于指导诊断假体周围关节感染的文献有限。目前提出的假体周围感染的临界值为:血沉27 mm/h;C反应蛋白14 mg/L;关节滑液白细胞计数6200/μL [23] 。

5. 单髁置换术(UKA)与全膝关节置换术(TKA)的优势与不足

TKA替代膝关节内外两个间室,而UKA仅替代膝关节内侧间室或外侧间室。TKA曾是治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的首选方法。选择TKA而不是UKA作为首选治疗的原因包括存在两个或三个间室的关节炎、韧带不稳定、手术操作不那么复杂、对线矫正和长期生存 [24] ;与TKA相比,UKA有几个潜在的优势,包括微创手术暴露、保留本地骨储备、保留交叉韧带、降低围手术期发病率 [25] 、增强术后恢复、提高患者满意度 [26] 。此外,与TKA相比,UKA的生物力学更接近于膝关节功能,具有更好的动态本体感觉和姿态控制 [27] 。最近的研究表明:与TKA相比,UKA的发病率和死亡率更低 [26] 。随着手术技术的改进和有希望的中期结果,UKA的使用在未来几十年有很大的潜力增加。与TKA相比,UKA的翻修率很高 [28] ,虽然TKA在一系列措施上取得了很好的效果,但仍有一部分患者对其结果不完全满意,例如功能活动持续受损 [29] ,和持续的术后疼痛 [30] [31] 。在Nam等人的研究中 [32] ,虽然TKA术后90%的患者对膝关节功能总体满意,但只有66%的患者认为膝关节是“正常”的,近一半的患者表明自己出现了一些症状和功能问题。而UKA由于其保留交叉韧带的特性,以及其完整的保存了对侧腔室和髌股的解剖结构,使得术后的膝关节更符合膝关节的运动学 [6] 。这样可以使患者的步态更正常,减少围手术期创伤,活动范围更大,康复速度更快 [33] [34] 。在一组23例单膝关节UKA和对侧膝关节TKA患者中,更多的患者认为使用UKA的一侧膝关节的感觉更加正常 [35] 。与TKA相比,UKA是一种侵入性较小的手术,在美国一项2:1匹配的队列研究中,接受TKA的肥胖患者与接受UKA的肥胖患者相比,UKA队列中患者的失血量显著减少,感染率也显著降低 [36] 。此外,TKA组的操作风险显著高于UKA组,并且与TKA相比,UKA的并发症,比如:肺栓塞、感染、心肌梗死、再入院和死亡明显减少 [37] 。而TKA患者的平均住院时间、医疗并发症的发生率,如血栓栓塞、心肌梗死、中风和再入院率都高于UKA患者 [38] 。此外,UKA患者的30天和8年死亡率低于TKA患者,通过对467,779例初级膝关节置换术进行了分析,发现UKA的45天死亡率显著低于TKA。通过印度、英国、加拿大和美国的研究,全球一致认为,与TKA相比,UKA的住院时间更短,再入院率更低 [39] [40] [41] 。

6. 单髁置换术(UKA)和胫骨高位截骨术(HTO)的优势与不足

UKA和HTO均为治疗膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎的手术治疗方法,一般来说,对于较年轻的患者,膝关节稳定性良好、运动功能要求较高、膝关节屈伸功能良好以及髌股关节及外侧间室关节软骨无明显退变的患者,推荐HTO [42] ,对于年龄 > 60,对术后运动功能要求不高、膝关节屈伸功能良好以及下肢力线不良能够预期矫正的患者倾向于行UKA治疗 [42] 。并且有一项通过1327个膝关节做出的研究报告显示,HTO组的患者在术前和术后的活动水平均高于UKA组,但是UKA组的膝关节活动水平的改善更加明显,因为HTO的患者在术前活动的水平就高于UKA组,所以HTO保持了膝关节的活动水平,而UKA却使患者的膝关节的活动水平得到了提高,表明HTO适用于术前活动较多的病人,而UKA使用于年龄较大,活动水平较低的患者 [43] 。我们要注意的是,如果接受UKA的患者年龄小于推荐年龄,那么就要承受UKA术后的翻修,有较早的研究表明,UKA术后翻修为TKA的年限大约为术后8.2年,而HTO翻修为TKA的年限约为术后9.7年 [44] ,而且有研究表明,UKA术后的TKA翻修不如直接做TKA手术 [45] ,而另一个研究表明HTO术后的TKA翻修就没有这种特点 [46] [47] 。

7. 单髁置换术(UKA)固定平台与活动平台的优势与不足

活动平台在理论上更接近膝关节的生物力学,并且固定平台0.15 mm/年的线性磨损率远远大于活动平台的线性磨损率0.036 mm/年 [48] ,但是活动平台需要较高的手术技术,因为如果力线较差,和膝关节周围软组织的平衡性较差的话,将增加活动平台的脱出几率以及外侧间室出现退行性变的几率 [49] 。而固定平台凭借其简单的结构,虽然增加了线性磨损率,但是这两种平台的平均磨损体积均相同,均为17.3 mm3/年 [48] ,并且固定平台较低的早期并发症以及相对简单的手术操作和较高的术后满意度成为目前单髁置换中较多的选择 [50] 。一篇Meta分析发现活动平台与固定平台内侧单髁膝关节置换术后的临床结果和手术翻修率均无差异。发现术后聚乙烯衬垫磨损和衬垫脱位的发生率两种假体之间存在差异且有统计学意义。活动平台假体在恢复下肢正常力线方面更有优势。非正常的力线分布两种假体之间也存在统计学差异,活动平台假体更倾向于外翻畸形,而固定平台假体则更倾向于内翻畸形 [51] 。

8. 单髁置换术(UKA)翻修

部分研究指出UKA的翻修率大于TKA,且UKA翻修的原因中,33%为一个或多个部件塌陷(下沉);30%为假体松动;15%为OA进展;7%为感染和疼痛;另外有4%是由于聚乙烯磨损和骨质溶解 [52] 。澳大利亚注册中心2016年的年度报告显示,自1999年以来,已经有超过46,000个UKA被植入,10年和15年的累积翻修率分别为14.6和21.0%,与全膝关节置换术(TKA)的5.5%和6.5%相比,UKA翻修率较高。但是Robertson发现每年至少进行24次UKA手术的外科医生在9年内有约93%的单髁不需要翻修 [53] 。Hansen和他的同事在8年的时间里评估了UKA和TKA患者的生存率,发现UKA患者的7年假体生存率为80.9%,TKA患者的假体生存率为95.7% [54] 。目前来说,医师操作越不熟练,UKA的翻修率就越高。

9. 展望

UKA因其手术时间短、手术创伤小、保留交叉韧带、保存骨量较多、术后本体感觉较好、术后功能恢复好等优点,再加上患者对于生活水平要求进一步提高,在老龄化加剧的中国,UKA已经成为关注的热点,但是仍然存在翻修率高,对于关节功能要求较高等问题。随着计算机、人工智能的发展,相信可以进一步提炼UKA的适应症,并且随着计算机及人工智能的辅助,能让更多医师高质量的完成UKA,进一步降低并发症及翻修率。

文章引用

李宝鑫,李钊伟. 单髁置换术治疗膝关节骨性关节炎研究进展
Advances in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis with Unicompartmental Knee Replacement[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(12): 19129-19135. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.13122691

参考文献

  1. 1. Hawker, G.A. (2019) Osteoarthritis Is a Serious Disease. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 120, 3-6.

  2. 2. Woolf, A.D. and Pfleger, B. (2003) Burden of Major Musculoskeletal Conditions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 646-656. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14710506/

  3. 3. Tang, X., Wang, S., Zhan, S., et al. (2016) The Prevalence of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis in China: Results from the China Health and Retirement Lon-gitudinal Study. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 68, 648-653. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39465

  4. 4. Stoddart, J.C., Dandridge, O., Garner, A., Cobb, J. and van Arkel, R.J. (2021) The Compartmental Distribution of Knee Osteoarthritis—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 29, 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2020.10.011

  5. 5. Yang, G.Y., Guo, H.L., Li, T., et al. (2020) The Medial Compart-ment and Patellofemoral Joint Degenerate More Severely in Early Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 24, 9815-9823.

  6. 6. MacIntosh, D.L. and Hunter, G.A. (1972) The Use of the Hemiarthroplasty Prosthesis for Advanced Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Knee. The Bone & Joint Journal, 54, 244-255. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.54B2.244

  7. 7. Marmor, L. (1973) The Modular Knee. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 94, 242-248. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197307000-00029

  8. 8. Mackinnon, J., Young, S. and Baily, R.A. (1988) The St Georg Sledge for Unicompartmental Replacement of the Knee. A Prospective Study of 115 Cases. The Bone & Joint Journal, 70, 217-223. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.70B2.3346291

  9. 9. Insall, J. and Aglietti, P. (1980) A Five to Seven-Year Follow-Up of Unicondylar Arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 62, 1329-1337. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198062080-00013

  10. 10. Murray, D.W., Goodfellow, J.W. and O’Connor, J.J. (1998) The Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty: A Ten-Year Survival Study. The Bone & Joint Journal, 80, 983-989. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B6.0800983

  11. 11. Kozinn, S.C. and Scott, R. (1989) Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 71, 145-150. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198971010-00023

  12. 12. Engh, G.A. and Ammeen, D.J. (2014) Unicondylar Ar-throplasty in Knees with Deficient Anterior Cruciate Ligaments. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 472, 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2982-y

  13. 13. Cartier, P., Khefacha, A., Sanouiller, J.L., et al. (2007) Unicondy-lar Knee Arthroplasty in Middle-Aged Patients: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up. Orthopedics, 30, 62-65.

  14. 14. Heyse, T.J., Khefacha, A., Peersman, G. and Cartier, P. (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the Middle-Aged. The Knee, 19, 585-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2011.09.002

  15. 15. Cavaignac, E., Lafontan, V., Reina, N., et al. (2013) Obesity Has No Adverse Effect on the Outcome of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement at a Minimum Follow-Up of Seven Years. The Bone & Joint Journal, 95, 1064-1068. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31370

  16. 16. Saldanha, K.A.N., Keys, G.W., Svard, U.C.G. and Rao, C. (2007) Revision of Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty—Results of a Mul-ticentre Study. The Knee, 14, 275-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.03.005

  17. 17. Sierra, R.J., Kassel, C.A., Wetters, N.G., et al. (2013) Revision of Unicompartmental Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty: Not Always a Slam Dunk! The Journal of Arthroplasty, 28, 128-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.040

  18. 18. McAuley, J.P., Engh, G.A. and Ammeen, D.J. (2001) Revision of Failed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 392, 279-282. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200111000-00036

  19. 19. Collier, M.B., Eickmann, T.H., Sukezaki, F., McAuley, J.P. and Engh, G.A. (2006) Patient, Implant, and Alignment Factors Associated with Revision of Medial Compartment Unicondylar Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 21, 108-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.012

  20. 20. Bergeson, A.G., et al. (2013) Medial Mobile Bearing Unicompart-mental Knee Arthroplasty: Early Survivorship and Analysis of Failures in 1000 Consecutive Cases. The Journal of Ar-throplasty, 28, 172-175. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23523498/

  21. 21. Park, D.Y., Min, B.H., Kim, D.W., et al. (2013) Polyethylene Wear Particles Play a Role in Development of Osteoarthritis via Detrimental Effects on Cartilage, Meniscus, and Syno-vium. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 21, 2021-2029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.09.013

  22. 22. Emerson Jr., R.H., Hansborough, T., Reitman, R.D., Rosenfeldt, W. and Higgins, L.L. (2002) Comparison of a Mobile with a Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Implant. Clinical Or-thopaedics and Related Research, 404, 62-70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12439239/

  23. 23. Society of Unicondylar Research and Continuing Education (2012) Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthro-plasty, 27, 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.033

  24. 24. Lachiewicz, P.F. and Soileau, E.S. (2009) Fifteen-Year Survival and Osteolysis Associated with a Modular Posterior Stabilized Knee Replacement. A Concise Follow-Up of a Previous Report. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 91, 1419-1423. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01351

  25. 25. Lim, J.W., Cousins, G.R., Clift, B.A., Ridley, D. and Johnston, L.R. (2014) Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty versus Age and Gender Matched Total Knee Arthroplasty-Functional Outcome and Survivorship Analysis. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 29, 1779-1783. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24805827/

  26. 26. Lombardi Jr., A.V., Berend, K.R., Walter, C.A., Aziz-Jacobo, J. and Cheney, N.A. (2009) Is Recovery Faster for Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental than Total Knee Arthroplasty? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 467, 1450-1457. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19225852/

  27. 27. Noble, P.C., Gordon, M.J., Weiss, J.M., et al. (2005) Does Total Knee Replacement Restore Normal Knee Function? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 431, 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150130.03519.fb

  28. 28. New Jersey Resources (2018) National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 15th Annual Report. Hemel Hempstead (England).

  29. 29. Nam, D., Nunley, R.M. and Barrack, R.L. (2014) Patient Dissatisfaction following Total Knee Replacement: A Growing Concern? The Bone & Joint Journal, 96, 96-100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25381418/

  30. 30. Nashi, N., Hong, C.C. and Krishna, L. (2015) Residual Knee Pain and Functional Outcome following Total Knee Arthroplasty in Osteoarthritic Pa-tients. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 23, 1841-1847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2910-z

  31. 31. Jenny, J.Y. and Boeri, C. (2003) Unicompartmental Knee Pros-thesis Implantation with a Non-Image-Based Navigation System: Rationale, Technique, Case-Control Comparative Study with a Conventional Instrumented Implantation. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 11, 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-002-0333-8

  32. 32. Engh, G.A. (2002) Orthopaedic Crossfire—Can We Justify Uni-condylar Arthroplasty as a Temporizing Procedure? In the Affirmative. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 17, 54-55. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.32448

  33. 33. Laurencin, C.T., Zelicof, S.B., Scott, R.D., et al. (1991) Unicompart-mental versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Same Patient. A Comparative Study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 273, 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199112000-00023

  34. 34. Zc, L., Da, C., Av, L., et al. (2018) Early Comparative Outcomes of Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty in Severely Obese Patients. The Knee, 25, 161-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.10.006

  35. 35. Hansen, E.N., Ong, K.L., Lau, E., et al. (2019) Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Has Fewer Complications But Higher Revision Rates than Total Knee Arthroplasty in a Study of Large United States Databases. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 34, 1617-1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.004

  36. 36. Liddle, A.D., Judge, A., Pandit, H. and Murray, D.W. (2014) Ad-verse Outcomes after Total and Unicompartmental Knee Replacement in 101,330 Matched Patients: A Study of Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The Lancet, 384, 1437-1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0

  37. 37. Hunt, L.P., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Clark, E.M., et al. (2014) 45-Day Mortality after 467, 779 Knee Replacements for Osteoarthritis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: An Observational Study. The Lancet, 384, 1429-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60540-7

  38. 38. Kulshrestha, V., Datta, B., Kumar, S. and Mittal, G. (2017) Outcome of Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty vs Total Knee Arthroplasty for Early Medial Compartment Arthritis: A Randomized Study. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 32, 1460-1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.014

  39. 39. Drager, J., et al. (2016) Shorter Hospital Stay and Lower 30-Day Readmission after Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 31, 356-361. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26476471/

  40. 40. S M Isaac, et al. (2007) Does Arthroplasty Type Influence Knee Joint Proprioception? A Longitudinal Prospective Study Comparing Total and Unicompartmental Arthroplasty. The Knee, 14, 212-217. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17344047/

  41. 41. Kawata, M., Sasabuchi, Y., Inui, H., et al. (2017) Annual Trends in Knee Arthroplasty and Tibial Osteotomy: Analysis of a National Database in Japan. The Knee, 24, 1198-1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.06.005

  42. 42. 杨波, 姜鑫. 单髁置换术与胫骨高位截骨术治疗膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎的近期疗效比较[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2015, 29(5): 548-552.

  43. 43. Belsey, J., Yasen, S.K., Jobson, S., Faulkner, J. and Wilson, A.J. (2021) Return to Physical Activity after High Tibial Osteotomy or Unicom-partmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Pooling Data Analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medi-cine, 49, 1372-1380. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32960075/

  44. 44. Spahn, G., et al. (2013) The Impact of a High Tibial Valgus Osteotomy and Unicondylar Medial Arthroplasty on the Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Me-ta-Analysis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 21, 96-112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22076053/

  45. 45. Sun, X.D. and Su, Z. (2018) A Meta-Analysis of Unicompart-mental Knee Arthroplasty Revised to Total Knee Arthroplasty versus Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. Journal of Or-thopaedic Surgery and Research, 13, Article 158. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29929543/

  46. 46. van Raaij, T.M., Reijman, M., Furlan, A.D. and Verhaar, J.A.N. (2009) Total Knee Arthroplasty after High Tibial Osteotomy. A Systematic Review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 10, Article No. 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-10-88

  47. 47. Ramappa, M., Anand, S. and Jennings, A. (2013) Total Knee Re-placement following High Tibial Osteotomy versus Total Knee Replacement without High Tibial Osteotomy: A System-atic Review and Meta Analysis. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 133, 1587-1593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1838-y

  48. 48. Psychoyios, V., Crawford, R.W., O’Connor, J.J. and Murray, D.W. (1998) Wear of Congruent Meniscal Bearings in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrieval Study of 16 Specimens. The Bone & Joint Journal, 80, 976-982. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B6.0800976

  49. 49. Kwak, J.Y., et al. (2012) Comparison of the Clinical Out-comes after Total Knee Arthroplasty with the LCS Rotating Platform Mobile Bearing Knee System and the PFC Sigma RP-F Mobile Bearing Knee System. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 4, 256-262. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23205234/

  50. 50. 徐浩, 王昌耀, 张海宁, 等. 活动平台与固定平台假体行人工全膝关节置换术十年疗效的比较研究[J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2017, 31(3): 271-277.

  51. 51. 王弘毅, 冯建民, 何川. 活动平台与固定平台内侧单髁膝关节置换术后疗效对比的Meta分析[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2013, 7(4): 499-508.

  52. 52. de Paula Mozella, A., Borges Gonçalves, F., Osterno Vasconcelos, J. and de Araújo Barros Cobra, H.A. (2014) Revision of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Implants Used and Causes of Failure. Revista Brasileira De Ortopedia, 49, 154-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbo.2014.02.002

  53. 53. Robertsson, O., Knutson, K., Lewold, S. and Lidgren, L. (2001) The Routine of Surgical Management Reduces Failure after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The Bone & Joint Journal, 83, 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.83B1.0830045

  54. 54. Hansen, E.N., Ong, K.L., Lau, E., Kurtz, S.M. and Lonner, J.H. (2018) Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty in the U.S. Patient Population: Prevalence and Epidemiology. American Journal of Orthopedics, 47, No. 12.

  55. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单