Comparison of outcomes between gap balancing and measured resection techniques for total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
/ adverse effects
Body Weights and Measures
/ methods
Bone and Bones
/ pathology
Female
Gait Analysis
/ methods
Humans
Knee Joint
/ diagnostic imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Size
Osteoarthritis, Knee
/ diagnosis
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
/ methods
Range of Motion, Articular
Spatio-Temporal Analysis
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Journal
Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica
ISSN: 2589-1294
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 9424806
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
entrez:
8
6
2021
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of Gap Balancing (GB) versus Measured Resection (MR) techniques on the early clinical and radiological results of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). In this prospective study, 99 patients (99 knees) who underwent unilateral TKA between March 2018 and January 2019 were randomly allocated to one of two groups: The GP group, TKA with GB technique (19 male, 31 female; mean age = 55.9 ±16.5) and the MR group, TKA with MR technique (19 male, 30 female; mean age = 54.2 ± 18.7). Patients in both groups were comparable in terms of the demographic and clinical data. The angle of cutting block to PCA and Cutting Thickness of the Medial and Lateral Condyle (CTMC, CTLC) were intraoperatively measured. In radiographic analysis, Preoperative Mechanical Femorotibial Angle (Pre-mFTA), Postoperative Mechanical Femorotibial Angle (Post-mFTA), and joint line changes were examined. Femoral component Rotation Angle (FCRA) was also measured by computed tomography. In gait analysis, the spatiotemporal parameters (walking speed, step length, and single support time) and kinematics parameters (flexion angle, extension angle, and transversal rotation) were collected at 12 months postoperatively. Furthermore, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were performed at 12 months after surgery. CTMC and CTLC were both significantly higher in GB group than in the MR group (9.8±2.0 mm vs 8.5 ± 1.2 mm; 7.9 ± 1.8mm vs 6.8 ± 1.4mm; P = 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively). Angle of cutting block to PCA was statistically lower in GB group than in the MR group (1.7 ± 1.5° vs 3.1 ± 0.5 °; P < 0.001). FCRA is greater in the GB group compared to the MR group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (1.2 ± 2.8 ° vs 0.7 ± 2.0 °; P > 0.05). Although post-mFTA significantly improved compared with pre-mFTA in both groups, no significant difference was observed in the changes of post-mFTA between the two groups (0.9 ± 1.7° vs 0.3 ± 1.8°, P > 0.05). No significant differences were determined between the two groups in spatiotemporal gait parameters including walking speed, step length, and single support time. The sagittal max knee flexion range was significantly larger in the GB group than in the MR group (49.27 ± 5.24 ° vs 45.99 ± 8.21 °, P < 0.05). The flexion range did not reach the level of the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in WOMAC at 12 months follow-up (P > 0.05). Evidence from this study has revealed GB and MR techniques have both little effect on early clinical results of TKA. Nonetheless, GB technique can provide better knee flexion in the early postoperative gait status compared with MR technique. Level I, Therapeutic Study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34100365
doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2021.20160
pmc: PMC10566348
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
239-245Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Nov;(380):72-9
pubmed: 11064975
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018 Aug;57:93-98
pubmed: 29966960
Knee. 2005 Aug;12(4):293-6
pubmed: 16026698
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Aug;19(5):613-9
pubmed: 15284983
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):57-63
pubmed: 19844772
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jul;33(7S):S126-S130
pubmed: 29602537
Musculoskelet Surg. 2011 Apr;95(1):25-30
pubmed: 21373908
J Knee Surg. 2020 Feb;33(2):144-151
pubmed: 30620985
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Apr;(205):12-20
pubmed: 3698370
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Sep;94(9):1271-6
pubmed: 22933502
Orthop Res Rev. 2019 Sep 20;11:129-140
pubmed: 31572022
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Oct;32(10):2995-2999
pubmed: 28550965
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Jan-Feb;(192):13-22
pubmed: 3967412
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7S):S361-S365
pubmed: 30948290
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jul;27(7):2140-2144
pubmed: 30820600
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Aug;22(2):158-62
pubmed: 25163946
J Arthroplasty. 2019 May;34(5):981-986.e1
pubmed: 30792170
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Jul;25(7):499-508
pubmed: 28644188
Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Mar;6(1):1-8
pubmed: 24605183
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012 Jun;26(3):409-22
pubmed: 22867935
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Oct;22(7):1042-8
pubmed: 17920479
J Orthop. 2018 Feb 02;15(1):181-185
pubmed: 29657464
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Sep;95(39):e5006
pubmed: 27684862
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jan;33(1):75-78
pubmed: 28917618
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Feb;27(2):477-9
pubmed: 25729195
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Jun;28(6):1805-1813
pubmed: 31270588
J Knee Surg. 2018 Jan;31(1):13-16
pubmed: 29179222
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1993;30(2):210-23
pubmed: 8035350
JBJS Rev. 2019 Mar;7(3):e2
pubmed: 30844845
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Jan;(286):40-7
pubmed: 8425366
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jul;472(7):2016-22
pubmed: 24574121
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):963-74
pubmed: 15118039
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Dec;19(12):2027-32
pubmed: 21431374