| Literature DB >> 34526057 |
Weipeng Shi1,2, Yaping Jiang3, Xuan Zhao4, Haining Zhang1, Yingzhen Wang5, Tao Li6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of posterior tibial slope (PTS) on the mid-term clinical outcome following a medial-pivot (MP) prosthesis.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical effect; Medial-pivot prosthesis; Mid-term; Posterior tibial slope
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34526057 PMCID: PMC8442407 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02704-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of a posterior tibial slope. a The tibia anterior cortex extension line. b Perpendicular to the extension line of the anterior tibial cortex. c The connection between the front and rear edges of the tibial plateau. The red arrow displays the angle between the two lines b and c; this is the posterior tibial slope (PTS)
Basic information
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Group C ( | Statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (female, %) | 60 (88.2%) | 71 (85.5%) | 72 (87.8%) | 0.865 | |
| Age (year) | 72.31 ± 5.31 | 71.48 ± 6.12 | 73.29 ± 5.05 | 0.065 | |
| Surgical side (left, %) | 26 (31.7%) | 44 (52.4%) | 40 (48.2%) | 0.184 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.83 ± 3.65 | 28.11 ± 3.77 | 28.60 ± 3.44 | 0.462 |
Fig. 2The relationship between the posterior tibial slope and postoperative ROM in all patients. Postoperative ROM increased with increasing PTS, and the two variables were positively correlated (r = 0.385)
Fig. 3Preoperative/postoperative range of motion (ROM). The postoperative ROM was significantly higher than preoperative ROM in the three groups. There was no significant difference in preoperative ROM between the three groups of patients, and the postoperative ROM of patients in groups B and C were significantly greater than the ROM in group A. In terms of ROM improvement, the effects of surgery on those in group B and group C were better than observed in group A. However, the postoperative ROM of 1 patient in group C was lower than it was before surgery
Fig. 4Comparison of the main indicators of the three groups. The postoperative KSS score and WOMAC score of the three groups were significantly improved, but there was no significant difference in KSS and WOMAC between the three groups of patients overall
Imaging data of three groups of patients
| Group A ( | Group B ( | Group C ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative PCO (mm) | 24.27 ± 3.01 | 24.39 ± 3.04 | 24.41 ± 2.76 | 0.019 | 0.991 |
| Postoperative PCO (mm) | 25.69 ± 2.71 | 25.87 ± 2.91 | 26.03 ± 3.25 | 0.077 | 0.962 |
| Change of PCO (mm) | 1.42 ± 2.13 | 1.47 ± 2.03 | 1.62 ± 2.47 | 0.209 | 0.901 |
| Preoperative joint line (mm) | 16.38 ± 3.76 | 16.71 ± 3.06 | 16.56 ± 3.83 | 0.410 | 0.815 |
| Postoperative joint line (mm) | 17.06 ± 2.97 | 17.71 ± 2.98 | 17.20 ± 2.82 | 1.529 | 0.465 |
| Change of joint line (mm) | 0.68 ± 3.19 | 1.00 ± 2.86 | 0.64 ± 3.47 | 0.996 | 0.608 |