| Literature DB >> 34419080 |
Ji-Ying Chen1, Xiang Li2, Cheng-Qi Jia3, Xiao-Rui Guan4, Zhi-Lai Zhao5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of antirheumatic drug treatment on knee function of stiff knee patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Entities:
Keywords: Ankylosing spondylitis; Rheumatoid arthritis; Sequential antirheumatic drug treatment; Stiff knee; Total knee arthroplasty
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34419080 PMCID: PMC8379847 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02662-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Flow diagram
Patient demographic parameters
| Parameters | Drug treatment | No drug treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 39.56 ± 11.74 | 38.64±9.21 | 0.828 |
| Gender | |||
| Male, no. (%) | 8 (50%) | 7(63.63%) | 0.696 |
| Female, no.(%) | 8 (50%) | 4(36.36%) | |
| Height | 163.94 ± 12.15 | 162.82±8.32 | 0.793 |
| Weight | 62.29 ± 15.61 | 54.00±8.34 | 0.121 |
| BMI | 22.97 ± 4.15 | 20.44±3.25 | 0.102 |
| Diagnosis | 1.000 | ||
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 9 | 7 | |
| Ankylosing spondylitis | 7 | 4 | |
| Knee | |||
| Left knee | 13 | 10 | 0.548 |
| Right knee | 14 | 7 | |
| Bilateral TKAs | 11 | 6 | |
| Unilateral TKA | 5 | 5 | |
| Inpatient days | 13.5 (6–29) | 12 (7–28) | 0.568 |
| Follow-up | 46.5 (35–69) | 58 (34–69) | 0.138 |
| Crutch, no. (%) | |||
| With crutch | 7 (43.75%) | 2 (18.18%) | 0.231 |
| Without crutch | 9 (56.25%) | 9 (81.82%) | |
| Revision knee, no. (%) | 2 (2/44, 2.27%) | 0 | 1.000 |
BMI body mass index
aThe values are given as the mean and the standard deviation
bThe values are given as the median, with the range in parentheses
Comparison of operative data between two groups after TKA
| Operative data | Drug treatment | No drug treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical time | 122.5 (60–240) | 127.5 (62.5–285) | 0.904 |
| Blood loss | 300 (50–600) | 250 (50–600) | 0.565 |
| ASA | 0.624 | ||
| II | 13 | 10 | |
| III | 3 | 1 | |
| Prosthesis | 0.333 | ||
| Depuy PFC | 11 | 9 | |
| Depuy PS150 | 6 | 1 | |
| Depuy RP | 4 | 5 | |
| Link RK | 6 | 2 | |
| Patella replacement, no. (%) | 8 (28.57%) | 3 (17.65%) | 0.592 |
| Soft tissue and bone procedures | |||
| The fused knee | 8 | 5 | |
| VY Quadricepsplasty | 4 | 0 | |
| Iliotibial band lysis | 3 | 0 | |
| Plus osteotomy (femoral) | 12 | 8 | |
| Plus osteotomy (tibia) | 0 | 2 | |
| Residual flexion deformity, no. (°) | 1 (15°) | 2 (15°) |
aThe values are given as the median, with the range in parentheses
Comparison of KSS score between two groups after TKA
| Clinical score | F1unctional score | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Preoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | |
| Group | ||||||||||
| Drug treatment | 9 (0–69) | 0 (0–5) | 83 (56–99) | 83 (56-99) | 85 (37–99) | 73 (32–84) | 5 (0–70) | 55 (5–100) | 60 (20–100) | 60 (20–100) |
No drug treatment | 0 (0–52) | 5 (0–5) | 89 (53–99) | 89 (52–99) | 89 (52–99) | 54 (32–78) | 0 (0–55) | 100 (0–100) | 100 (0–100) | 100 (0–100) |
| Statistic | ||||||||||
aThe values are given as the median, with the range in parentheses. * p < 0.05.
Comparison of ROM, VAS, and FJS between two groups after TKA
| ROM | VAS | FJS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Preoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | |
| Group | |||||||||||
| Drug treatment | 10 (0–50) | 90 (30–95) | 85 (30–110) | 80 (30–110) | 80 (30–110) | 6 (0–9) | 3 (0–9) | 0 (0–5) | 0 (0–5) | 0 (0–5) | 50 (25–100) |
No drug treatment | 25 (0–50) | 90 (60–90) | 90 (60–90) | 90 (60–90) | 90 (70–90) | 6 (3–9) | 3 (0–6) | 0 (0–4) | 0 (0–4) | 0 (0–4) | 75 (25–75) |
| Statistic | |||||||||||
ROM range of motion, VAS visual analogue scale, FJS “Forgotten Joint” Scale
aThe values are given as the median, with the range in parentheses
Comparison of FJS and the patients’ satisfaction between two groups after TKA, no. (%)
| Patients’ satisfaction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | Postoperative | |
| Group | |||||
| Drug treatment | Very good | 1 (1/27) | 1 (1/27) | 1 (1/27) | 1 (1/27) |
| Good | 15 (15/27) | 11 (11/27) | 11 (11/27) | 11 (11/27) | |
| General | 11 (11/27) | 13 (13/27) | 13 (13/27) | 13 (13/27) | |
| Not good | 0 (0/27) | 2 (2/27) | 2 (2/27) | 2 (2/27) | |
| No drug treatment | Very good | 0 (0/17) | 0 (0/17) | 0 (0/17) | 0 (0/17) |
| Good | 8 (8/17) | 2 (2/17) | 2 (2/17) | 2 (2/17) | |
| General | 6 (6/17) | 4(4/17) | 4 (4/17) | 4 (4/17) | |
| Not good | 3 (3/17) | 11 (11/17) | 11 (11/17) | 11 (11/17) | |
| Statistic | |||||
aThese indexes of the patients’ satisfaction were classified as Very good if they have no other uncomfortable feelings, Good if they have few special feelings, General if they could accept some uncomfortable feelings, and Not Good if they could not accept the uncomfortable feelings. *p < 0.05.
The sequential drug treatment of group 1 after TKA
| Serial number | Number of knees | Diagnosis | Drug 1 | Drug 2 | Drug 3 | Drug 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | AS | NSAIDS | Sulfasalazine | Methotrexate | Root of herbaceous peony |
| 2 | 2 | AS | NSAIDS | |||
| 3 | 2 | RA | Tripterygium wilfordii | Prednisone | ||
| 4 | 1 | RA | Traditional Chinese Medicine | |||
| 5 | 2 | RA | NSAIDS | Leflunomide | ||
| 6 | 1 | RA | NSAIDS | Leflunomide | Iguratimod | |
| 7 | 1 | RA | NSAIDS | Leflunomide | Iguratimod | |
| 8 | 2 | AS | NSAIDS | |||
| 9 | 2 | AS | NSAIDS | Leflunomide | Iguratimod | |
| 10 | 2 | RA | NSAIDS | Huangteng | ||
| 11 | 1 | RA | NSAIDS | Iguratimod | Sulfasalazine | |
| 12 | 2 | RA | NSAIDS | Sulfasalazine | Leflunomide | |
| 13 | 2 | AS | NSAIDS | Leflunomide | ||
| 14 | 2 | AS | Etanercept | |||
| 15 | 1 | AS | NSAIDS | |||
| 16 | 2 | RA | NSAIDS | Methotrexate | Sulfasalazine | Tripterygium wilfordii |
| 16 | 27 |
RA rheumatoid arthritis, AS ankylosing spondylitis, NSAIDS nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Fig. 2Changes in KSS, ROM, and VAS at dfferent follow-up time