Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research (CJTER, originally named as Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Eng...
A Guide to the Core Journal of China (2017 version)Top Articles from Outstanding S & T Journals of China (F5000)Source J...
Peifu Tang, MD., Ph.D.ProfessorDepartment of Orthopedics,Chinese PLA General Hospital,Beijing, ChinaClick for Personal H...
Aimin Chen, MD., Ph.D.ProfessorDepartment of Orthopedics,Shanghai Changzheng Hospital,Shanghai, ChinaBaixing Chen, Ph.D....
Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
Purpose of Peer ReviewThank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be...
Once the manuscript has passed quality control check, it is assigned to the strict double-blinded peer review process fo...
2023, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (18): 2848-2853
Comparison of cementless and cemented femoral prosthesis for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the treatment of osteoarthritis
Shi Sifeng, Lin Qiang, Zhou Bing, Chen Xiangyang, Lu Wenhai
Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221400, Jiangsu Province, China
About author:Shi Sifeng, MD, Associate chief physician, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221400, Jiangsu Province, China
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, No. BK20140220 (to SSF)
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The application of cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is becoming increasingly popular, but its clinical result is still controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical result of the cementless and the cemented femoral prosthesis in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the treatment of anteromedial knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS: From January 2020 to January 2021, 62 patients with medial compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee were enrolled in the Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, and randomly allocated to 2 groups, including 31 cases in the cemented group and 31 cases in the cementless group. Patients were all treated with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The postoperative visual analogue scale score, range of motion of the knee, Hospital for Special Surgery score and patient satisfaction were recorded for statistical evaluation.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) There was no significant difference in knee range of motion at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, excellent and good rate of Hospital for Special Surgery score and patient satisfaction at 6 months after surgery between the two groups (P > 0.05). (2) The visual analogue scale score of the cemented group was better than that of the cementless group at 1 and 3 months at rest (P < 0.05); the visual analogue scale score on activity was better in the cemented group than that of the cementless group at 3 months (P < 0.05). (3) There was no postoperative infection or deep vein thrombosis. There were two patients with delayed wound healing, and wound healed after dressing change. (4) It is suggested that cementless femoral prosthesis for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was safe and effective in the treatment of medial osteoarthritis. Compared with cemented femoral prostheses, although pain relief was less in the early postoperative period, two prostheses have the same effect on postoperative knee range of motion and clinical function of the knee. For elderly patients with osteoporosis, the authors recommend the cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Key words: unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, knee, unicompartmental, arthritis, cementless prosthesis, cemented prosthesis