目的 探讨固定平台（FB）与活动平台（MB）单髁置换术（UKA）治疗膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎（OA）的早期临床疗效及影像学差异，为临床假体选择提供依据。
方法 回顾性分析41 例单侧膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎患者临床资料，其中 FB 组 20例（采用春立XG假体），MB 组 21 例（采用春立XK假体）。比较两组患者术前、术后和末次随访的膝关节活动度（ROM）、疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、美国特种外科医院膝关节评分（HSS）；测量并比较股胫角（FTA）、胫骨假体内外翻角（TCVA）、胫骨假体后倾角（TCPSA）；记录围手术期指标及并发症情况。
结果 两组患者术后ROM、VAS、HSS 评分均较术前显著改善（P均<0.0001）；末次随访时固定平台组 VAS 评分显著低于活动平台组（P<0.05），ROM、HSS 评分两组差异无统计学意义（均 P>0.05）。两组术后 FTA、TCVA、TCPSA 均恢复至理想范围，组间差异均无统计学意义（均 P>0.05）。固定平台组手术时间更短（P<0.05），两组均无严重并发症，假体生存率均为 100%。
结论 固定平台与活动平台单髁置换术均可显著改善膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎患者疼痛、活动度及功能，下肢力线恢复效果相当；固定平台假体在疼痛控制与手术便捷性方面更具优势，临床可根据患者情况与术者经验个体化选择。
关键词 单髁置换术；活动平台假体；固定平台假体；骨关节炎；并发症
Abstract
Objective To investigate the early clinical outcomes and radiological differences between fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to provide evidence for clinical prosthesis selection.
Methods Clinical data of 41 patients with unilateral medial compartment knee OA were retrospectively analyzed. The FB group comprised 20 patients (using Chunli XG prosthesis), and the MB group comprised 21 patients (using Chunli XK prosthesis). Knee range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score, and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score were compared between the two groups preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. Femorotibial angle (FTA), tibial component valgus angle (TCVA), and tibial component posterior slope angle (TCPSA) were measured and compared. Perioperative indicators and complications were recorded.
Results Postoperative ROM, VAS, and HSS scores significantly improved compared with preoperative values in both groups (all P < 0.0001). At the final follow-up, the VAS score in the FB group was significantly lower than that in the MB group (P < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed in ROM or HSS scores between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Postoperative FTA, TCVA, and TCPSA values returned to the ideal range in both groups, with no significant intergroup differences (all P > 0.05). The FB group had a significantly shorter operative time (P < 0.05). No severe complications occurred in either group, and the prosthesis survival rate was 100% in both groups.
Conclusion Both FB-UKA and MB-UKA significantly improve pain, range of motion, and function in patients with medial compartment knee OA, with comparable efficacy in restoring lower limb alignment. The FB prosthesis offers advantages in pain control and surgical convenience. Clinical selection may be individualized based on patient characteristics and surgeon experience.
Keywords Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Mobile-bearing prosthesis; Fixed-bearing prosthesis; Osteoarthritis; Complications
