摘要
目的 分析固定（FB）和活动平台（MB）单髁置换术（UKA）在膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎早期阶段的临床效果与影像学差异，以指导临床假体选择。
方法 本研究回顾性纳入41例确诊为单侧膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎的患者，按照假体类型分为两组：FB组（20例，使用春立XG假体）和MB组（21例，使用春立XK假体）。分别在术前、术后及随访终点统计膝关节屈伸活动范围（ROM）、VAS 疼痛评分、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），而两组间的ROM、HSS 评分无统计学差异（均 P>0.05）。两组术后 FTA、TCVA、TCPSA 均恢复至理想范围，组间均无统计学差异（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 活动平台与固定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
