Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Our study determined the long-term clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography scanning results of high-flexion mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the same younger patients. In addition, the survivorship and complication rates of both groups were evaluated.
Methods: Bilateral simultaneous sequential TKAs were performed in 164 patients (328 knees). There were 142 women and 22 men with a mean age of 63 ± 9 years (range 41-65), who received a high-flexion mobile-bearing prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion fixed-bearing prosthesis in the other. The mean follow-up was 16.9 years (range 15-18).
Results: At the latest follow-up, the mean Knee Society knee scores (94 ± 8 vs 95 ± 9 points, P = .7), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (20 ± 11 vs 20 ± 11 points, P = 1.0), range of knee motion (125° ± 10° vs 127° ± 9°, P = .8), and University of California, Los Angeles activity scores (7.8 vs 7.8 points, P = 1.0) were below the level of clinical significance between the 2 groups. Survival rate of high-flexion mobile-bearing TKA was 98.2% and that of high-flexion fixed-bearing TKA was 97% at 16 years. No osteolysis was identified in either group.
Conclusion: After a minimum duration of follow-up of 13 years, we found no significant difference between these 2 groups with regard to functional outcome, knee motion, prevalence of osteolysis, or survivorship. This study does not clearly direct the surgeon toward either arm of treatment. Longer term follow-up is needed to prove the superiority of one type of implant over the other one.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.007 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!