| Literature DB >> 35419454 |
Jing Guo1, Qiang Xu1, Menghui Gao1, Qingyan Zhang1.
Abstract
Background: Total knee arthroplasty is an effective treatment for end-stage knee arthritis. Studies' date have shown that the demand for knee replacements continues to increase worldwide. Although racial disparities have been previously reported in the utilization of total knee arthroplasty in western countries, however, there are few similar studies in China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35419454 PMCID: PMC9001098 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5331346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Comparison of the average ages of Tibetan and Han patients (n, ).
| Ethic group | Number of cases | Average age | Minimum age | Maximum age | Difference of average age |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Han | 1054 | 67.74 ± 7.79 | 42 | 93 | 5.37 | 13.11 | <0.0001 |
| Tibetan | 541 | 62.37 ± 7.63 | 36 | 92 |
Age distribution of the Tibetan and Han patients (n, %).
| Age group | Number of cases | Tibetan ( | Han ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49 years old and below | 40 | 28 (5.18%) | 12 (1.14%) | 127.90 | <0.0001 |
| 50-59 years old | 283 | 151 (27.91%) | 132 (12.52%) | ||
| 60-69 years old | 701 | 252 (46.58%) | 449 (42.6%) | ||
| 70-79 years old | 506 | 101 (18.67%) | 405 (38.43%) | ||
| 80 years old and above | 65 | 9 (1.66%) | 56 (5.31%) |
Analysis of the average age and time trend for the Tibetan and Han patients ().
| Ethnic group | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tibetan | 63.48 ± 8.25 | 63.32 ± 9.65 | 63.82 ± 9.24 | 62.83 ± 7.17 | 61.32 ± 5.68 | 60.51 ± 5.87 |
| Han | 66.49 ± 8.39 | 67.94 ± 7.88 | 67.65 ± 7.71 | 67.40 ± 7.46 | 68.49 ± 7.71 | 67.43 ± 7.68 |
Figure 1The age trends of the Tibetan and Han patients.
Summary of the gender distributions of the Tibetan and Han patients (n, %).
| Ethnic group | Tibetan | Han | Total |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Male ( | 180 (33.3%) | 225 (21.3%) | 405 | 26.83 | <0.0001 |
| Female ( | 361 (66.7%) | 829 (78.7%) | 1190 | ||
| Proportion (male: female) | 1 : 2.01 | 1 : 3.68 | 1 : 2.94 | ||
| Total ( | 541 (100%) | 1054 (100%) | 1595 |
Comparison of gender and time distribution of the Tibetan and Han patients (n, %).
| Ethnic group | Time grouping | Total |
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | ||||
| Tibetan male | 9 | 30 | 40 | 28 | 51 | 22 | 180 | ||
|
| (39.13%) | (37.97%) | (34.78%) | (31.82%) | (30.56%) | (32.3%) | (33.27%) | 10.16 | 0.071 |
| Han male | 23 | 55 | 42 | 29 | 46 | 30 | 225 | ||
|
| (21.7%) | (20.68%) | (23.73%) | (21.01%) | (19.25%) | (23.44%) | (21.35%) | ||
| Tibetan female | 14 | 49 | 75 | 60 | 113 | 50 | 361 | ||
|
| (60.87%) | (62.03%) | (65.22%) | (68.18%) | (69.44%) | (67.7%) | (66.73%) | 39.98 | <0.0001 |
| Han female | 83 | 211 | 135 | 109 | 193 | 98 | 829 | ||
|
| (78.30%) | (79.32%) | (76.27%) | (78.99%) | (80.75%) | (76.56%) | (78.65%) | ||
Figure 2Trends of morbidity in the female Tibetan and Han patients.
Comparison of the average BMI values between the Tibetan and Hans populations ().
| Ethnic group | Tibetan | Han | Average difference |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI index | 26.94 ± 4.05 | 25.49 ± 3.38 | 1.45 | 7.16 | <0.0001 |
Figure 3BMI distributions in the Tibetan and Han patients.
The distribution of BMI in the Tibetan and Han patients (n, %).
| Ethnic group | BMI distribution | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <18.5 | 18. 5-23. 9 | 24-27.9 | ≥28 |
|
| |
| Light weight | Normal weight | Overweight | Obesity | |||
| Tibetan | 5 (0.9%) | 110 (20.3%) | 212 (39.2%) | 214 (39.6%) | 52.99 | <0.0001 |
| Han | 15 (1.4%) | 314 (29.8%) | 486 (46.2%) | 238 (22.6%) | ||
| Total | 20 | 424 | 698 | 452 | ||
Comparison of gender and BMI between the Tibetan and Han patients ().
| Ethnic group | Gender | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female |
|
| |
| Tibetan | 26.65 ± 3.46 | 27.09 ± 4.32 | 1.28 | 0.203 |
| Han | 25.25 ± 3.42 | 25.55 ± 3.36 | 1.18 | 0.237 |
The occupational statistics of the Tibetan and Han patients (n, %).
| Ethnic group | Occupation | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadre | Worker | Public security personnel | Teacher | Doctor | Farmer | Porter | Retiree | Shop employee |
|
| |
| Tibetan | 47 | 28 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 357 | 9 | 34 | 64 | 36.26 | 0.0002 |
| (8.7%) | (5.2%) | (0%) | (0.2%) | (0.2%) | (66%) | (1.7%) | (6.3%) | (11.8%) | |||
| Han | 35 | 101 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 648 | 34 | 82 | 147 | ||
| (3.3%) | (9.6%) | (0.1%) | (0.4%) | (0.2%) | (61.5%) | (3.2%) | (7.8%) | (13.9%) | |||
| Total | 82 | 129 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1005 | 43 | 116 | 211 | ||
| (5.1%) | (8.1%) | (0.1%) | (0.3%) | (0.2%) | (63%) | (2.7%) | (7.3%) | (13.2%) | |||
The occupation distribution of the Tibetan and Han patients (n, %).
| Ethnic group | Labor intensity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Light labor | Medium labor | Heavy labor | Extremely heavy labor |
|
| |
| Tibetan | 83 (15.3%) | 28 (5.2%) | 73 (13.5%) | 357 (66%) | 16.30 | 0.0009 |
| Han | 124 (11.8%) | 101 (9.6%) | 181 (17.2%) | 648 (61.5%) | ||
| Total | 207 | 129 | 254 | 1005 | ||
Comparison of the disease prevalence and exacerbation period between the Tibetan and the Han patients (x ± s).
| Ethnic group | Number of cases ( | Average duration of disease (year) | Average exacerbation duration of disease (year) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Han | 1054 | 9.05 ± 7.42 | 1.50 ± 1.89 |
| Tibetan | 541 | 10.12 ± 6.93 | 2.16 ± 2.41 |
|
| 5.646 | 6.437 | |
|
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
Comparison of the treatment methods between the Tibetan and the Han patients (n, %).
| Ethnic group | Treatment method | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonstandard treatment | Standard treatment |
|
| |
| Tibetan | 381 (70.4%) | 160 (29.6%) | 73.38 | <0.0001 |
| Han | 505 (47.9%) | 549 (52.1%) | ||
| Total | 886 (55.5%) | 709 (44.5%) | ||