RESUMO
Introduction: There has been debate regarding the advantages of cruciate-retaining over posterior stabilized (PS) knee arthroplasty and vice versa. Many authors consider any coronal plane deformity > 15° as a contraindication for cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. We aimed to compare whether functional outcome, deformity correction, and survivorship of cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty (CR) for severe varus deformity are equivalent to that ofposterior cruciate ligament substituting (PS) for 6 years. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative study among patients who underwent Total Knee Replacement in the Orthopedics Department of a tertiary care hospital between 2016 and 2018 August who had a varus deformity of more than 15°. The first author exclusively performed CR operation (Group A) for all complex knees. In contrast, the second author performed PS surgery (Group B) for any coronal plane deformity over 15°. Clinical evaluation included completing a Knee Society Score (KSS) Evaluation Form. Pre-operative scoring was collected from the hospital database. All clinical examinations and radiographs at the final follow-up were done by the third author, who was unbiased and not involved with the initial patient care. Results: here were 39 patients in Group A (CR) and 28 patients in Group B (PS). In Group A, the mean pre-operative varus was 22.05 ± 2.72° and the pre-operative KSS was 32.94 ± 6.79. Postoperatively, the deformity corrected to a mean valgus of 5.48 ± 1.8° and mean KSS of 89.17 ± 5.79. In Group B, the mean pre-operative varus was 22.14±3.82° and pre-operative KSS was 32.82 ± 5.98. Postoperatively, the deformity corrected to a mean valgus of 4.85 ± 2.1° and mean KSS of 90.17 ± 5.13. The mean insert thickness was 11.76 ± 1.75 mm and 11.42 ± 1.75mm among the CRand PS groups, respectively. Concerning deformity correction (P = 0.19) and functional outcome (P = 0.46), both groups showed equal improvement with a 100% survival rate for 6 years. Conclusion: We concluded that CRknee replacements are possible with excellent functional and radiological outcomes in severe varus arthritic knees with a 100 % survival rate.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial breakthroughs in instrumentation systems and pharmaceutical interventions, pain following endodontic therapy remains a serious concern. The effect of the type of endodontic instrumentation system in post-operative pain after endodontic therapy has been a matter of debate. AIM: To evaluate different endodontic instrumentation systems, namely Reciproc (GmbH, Munich), OneShape® (MicroMega, France), Protaper Gold (Dentsply Sirona, USA), and Hyflex® EDM (Coltène/Whaledent Inc., USA) file systems, regarding post-operative pain after endodontic therapy Methods and materials: The endodontic department treated healthy patients aged 20 to 50 years who were experiencing symptoms of irreparable pulpitis in one or more maxillary molars or mandibular molars. Five hundred was the determined size of the sample. The study participants were divided into five categories, each comprising 100 participants. These categories were: Category 1: Reciproc instrumentation system. Category 2: OneShape® instrumentation system. Category 3: ProtaperGold instrumentation system. Category 4: HyFlex® EDM instrumentation system. Category 5: Control (stainless steel K-files). Following endodontic therapy, these scores were recorded at 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours using the VAS scale. RESULTS: The visual analog scale (VAS) score (mean±SD) in the control group was 0.73± 0.40 (<0.001). The VAS score in the Reciproc group was 0.43± 0.05 (<0.001). The VAS score in the OneShape® group was 0.36±0.09 (<0.001). The VAS score in the Protaper Gold group was 0.41 ±0.08 (<0.001). The VAS score in the HyFlex® EDM group was 0.55 ±0.02 (<0.001). The VAS score in all instrumentation techniques at 72 hours follow-up was lesser in comparison to a control group with meaningful statistical significance (<0.001). However, the post-operative pain among the Reciproc, OneShape®, Protaper Gold, and HyFlex® EDM instrumentation systems was not different clinically when compared among themselves. However, VAS values were greater in OneShape® and HyFlex® EDM compared to Reciproc and Protaper Gold, showing increased post-operative pain in OneShape and HyFlex® EDM compared to Reciproc and Protaper Gold. It was also observed that there was a decline in the VAS score in all instrumentation systems as the follow-up period increased from 6 hours to 72 hours, with maximum post-operative pain at 6 hours of follow-up and minimum post-operative pain at 72 hours of follow-up. However, the decline was lesser in OneShape® and HyFlex® EDM in comparison to Reciproc and Protaper Gold, with increased post-operative pain in OneShape® and HyFlex® EDM in comparison to Reciproc and Protaper Gold. CONCLUSION: Post-operative pain at all follow-ups of endodontic procedures was less in Reciproc, OneShape®, Protaper Gold, and HyFlex® EDM than in the control group. VAS scores were higher in the OneShape® and HyFlex® EDM groups compared to the Reciproc and Protaper Gold groups, indicating increased post-operative pain with OneShape® and HyFlex® EDM instruments in comparison to Reciproc and Protaper Gold.