메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate and compare the revision rate due to aseptic loosening between a high-­flex prosthesis and a conventional prosthesis.Materials and Methods: Two thousand seventy-­eight knees (1,377 patients) with at least 2 years of follow­-up after total knee arthroplasty were reviewed. Two types of implants were selected (LPS­-Flex and LPS, Zimmer) to compare revision and survival rates and sites of loosened prosthesis component. Results: The revision rate of the LPS-­Flex (4.9%) was significantly higher than that of the conventional prosthesis (0.6%) (p<0.001). The 5-­, 10-­, and 15­-year survival rates were 98.9%, 96.2% and 92.0%, respectively, for the LPS-­Flex and 99.8%, 98.5% and 93.5%, respectively, for the LPS. The survival rate of the high-­flex prosthesis was significantly lower than that of the conventional prosthesis, especially in the mid­-term period (range, 5 to 10 years; p=0.002). The loosening rate of the femoral component was significantly higher in the LPS-­Flex prosthesis (p=0.001). Conclusions: The LPS-­Flex had a higher revision rate due to aseptic loosening than the LPS prosthesis in the large population series with a long follow-­up. The LPS-­Flex should be used carefully considering the risk of femoral component aseptic loosening in the mid-­term (range, 5 to 10 years) follow-­up period after initial operation.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (23)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0