Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2021 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 5

Which knee replacement do the patients forget? Unicondylar or total knee arthroplasty

Sayfa
417–421
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: The results of this study have demonstrated that UKA may be better than TKA in terms of the patient perception of pain, stiffness, and physical functioning.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this study was to determine which type of knee arthroplasty is easier to forget by comparing levels of joint awareness evaluated with the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) after unicondylar versus total knee arthroplasty.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: Patients who underwent either unicondylar or total knee arthroplasty due to primary gonarthrosis were retrospectively identified and then divided into 2 groups: the TKA group (218 patients; mean age = 68.93 ± 7.14 years) and the UKA group (131 patients; mean age = 60.39 ± 7.03 years).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: The results of this study have demonstrated that UKA may be better than TKA in terms of the patient perception of pain, stiffness, and physical functioning.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine which type of knee arthroplasty is easier to forget by comparing levels of joint awareness evaluated with the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) after unicondylar versus total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Patients who underwent either unicondylar or total knee arthroplasty due to primary gonarthrosis were retrospectively identified and then divided into 2 groups: the TKA group (218 patients; mean age = 68.93 ± 7.14 years) and the UKA group (131 patients; mean age = 60.39 ± 7.03 years). The status of joint awareness after knee replacement surgery was assessed using the Turkish version of the FJS-12 at the final follow-up by telephone interview. Also, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and The EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) scores were obtained to assess the clinical status of the patients. Results: The mean follow-up was 2.8 years (range = 24–49 months) in the TKA group and 3.2 years (range = 24–50 months) in the UKA group. The FJS-12 was significantly higher in the UKA group (73.60 ± 9.95) than in the TKA group (64.88 ± 9.47) (P = .001). The WOMAC score was significantly better in the UKA group (81.39 ± 9.84) than in the TKA group (74.92 ± 9.99) (P = .001). No significant difference in EQ-5D existed between the groups (0.76 ± 0.14 for the TKA group, 0.79 ± 0.17 for the UKA group; P = .441). In terms of gender, the FJS-12 showed no differences between the groups; however, more favorable scores were recorded in younger patients with UKA. Conclusion: The results of this study have demonstrated that UKA may be better than TKA in terms of the patient perception of pain, stiffness, and physical functioning.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ateş, Y., Akdoğan, M., Atilla, H. A. (2022). Which knee replacement do the patients forget? Unicondylar or total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 5, 417–421. https://ajindex.com/articles/427991

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Murray DW, Liddle AD, Dodd CAF, Pandit H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Is the glass half full or half empty? Bone Jt J. 2015
  2. B(10 Suppl A):3-8. 10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36542 2. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The “Forgotten Joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty. Validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty. 2012
  3. 27(3):430436.e1. 10.1016/j.arth.2011. 06.035 3. Niama Natta DD, Thienpont E, Bredin A, Salaun G, Detrembleur C. Rasch analysis of the Forgotten Joint Score in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019
  4. 27(6):1984-1991. 10. 1007/s00167-018-5109-x 4. Dai Y, Lin W, Yang GM, Lu JF, Wang F. Joint awareness after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. Orthop Surg. 2020
  5. 12(1):218-223. 10.1111/os.12613 5. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: A propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017
  6. 32(5):1453-1459. 10.1016/j.arth. 2016.11.034 6. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, et al. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019
  7. 364 21. 10.1136/bmj.l352 7. Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoǧlu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2005
  8. 13(1):28-33. 10.1016/j.joca.2004. 10.010 8. Kinikli G, Güney Deniz H, Karahan S, et al. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Forgotten Joint Score-12. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation. 2017
  9. 4(1):18-25. 10.1111/1756-185X.12962 9. Adriani M, Malahias MA, Gu A, Kahlenberg CA, Ast MP, Sculco PK. Determining the validity, reliability, and utility of the forgotten joint score: A systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2020
  10. 35(4):1137-1144. 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.058 10. Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2016
  11. 87 3 280-285. 10.3109/17453674. 2016.1156934 11. Zuiderbaan HA, Van Der List JP, Khamaisy S, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017
  12. 25(3):681-686. 10. 1007/s00167-015-3868-1 12. Peersman G, Verhaegen J,