中国组织工程研究

中国组织工程研究 ›› 2011, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (48): 9055-9058.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2011.48.031

• 骨与关节循证医学 evidence-based medicine of the bone and joint • 上一篇    下一篇

全膝关节置换中应用旋转平台和固定平台假体效果的Meta分析

陈跃平，陈  亮，罗东方，高 辉   

  1. 广西中医学院附属瑞康医院骨科，广西壮族自治区南宁市  530011
  • 收稿日期:2011-07-14 修回日期:2011-09-16 出版日期:2011-11-26 发布日期:2011-11-26
  • 通讯作者: 陈亮，硕士，主治医师，广西中医学院附属瑞康医院骨科，广西壮族自治区南宁市 530011
  • 作者简介:陈跃平☆，男，1970年生，湖南省益阳市人，汉族，南方医科大学在读博士，副主任医师，副教授，硕士研究生导师，主要从事骨与关节疾病、运动损伤方面的研究。 chenyueping007@126.com

Effects of rotating platform prosthesis and fixed platform prosthesis applied in total knee replacement: A Meta analysis

Chen Yue-ping, Chen Liang, Luo Dong-fang, Gao Hui   

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Ruikang Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning  530011, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • Received:2011-07-14 Revised:2011-09-16 Online:2011-11-26 Published:2011-11-26
  • Contact: Chen Liang, Master, Attending physician, Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Ruikang Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530011, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • About author:Chen Yue-ping☆, Studying for doctorate, Associate chief physician, Associate professor, Master’s supervisor, Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Ruikang Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530011, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China chenyueping007@126.com

PDF

470

被引次数

3

摘要：

背景：旋转假体是否优于固定假体学术界目前仍有争议。
目的：全膝关节置换中应用旋转或固定平台型假体的临床结果比较，分析两类假体的疗效差异。
方法：检索Medline、Embase、Cochranelibrary、中国生物医学文献数据库及相关参考文献，收集比较旋转和固定型假体全膝关节置换的随机对照试验，采用Cochrane的随机方法学评价文献质量，应用RevMan5.1.2 进行Meta 分析。使用GRADEpro version3.2.2软件对纳入研究进行证据评级。
结果与结论：纳入10个随机对照试验，总共764例，置换旋转假体的实验组381例，置换平台假体的对照组383例。纳入研究的方法学偏倚均较低。术后疗效均较术前明显提高，组间比较的Meta 分析结果显示，两组膝关节评分、关节活动度及置换后并发症、翻修率均未发现明显的统计学差异。结果显示，目前证据未能证明旋转平台假体优于固定平台假体，需要开展更多高质量的对照试验加以证实，但无论选择何种假体均有可能获得满意的临床效果。

关键词: 全膝关节置换, 旋转平台, 固定平台, 系统评价, 医学植入物, 膝关节假体

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Currently, whether rotating prosthesis is superior to fixed prosthesis is still unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of rotating platform prosthesis and fixed platform prosthesis applied in total knee replacement in order to analyze their different curative effects.
METHODS: Relative articles were obtained from Medline database, Embase database, and China Biology Medicine disc. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about rotating and fixed platform prosthesis in total knee replacement were selected and compared. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Cochrane’s random methodology. RevMan 5.1.2 software was used for data analysis, and GRADEpro version 3.2.2 software was used for evidence rating of the included studies.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Totally 764 cases form 10 RCTs were involved. Of which 381 cases with rotating prosthesis replacement were taken as experimental group and 383 cases with platform prosthesis replacement were control group. The methodological bias involved in the study was lower, and the curative effect was improved. The Meta-analysis results compared between the two groups showed that there was no significant difference in the knee scores, ranges of motion and postoperative complications, as well as overhaul rates. The results show that the evidence cannot prove that rotating platform prosthesis is better than fixed platform prosthesis. More high-quality RCTs are needed to verify this. However, no matter which type of prosthesis can achieve satisfactory clinical effect.

中图分类号: