{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04289544235924933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.028724626579854463, 'mean_word_length': 4.593147751605995, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the Imaging and Clinical Outcomes among the Measured Resection, Gap Balancing, and Hybrid Techniques in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE
Although many studies have compared the measured resection (MR) technique to the gap balancing (GB) technique, few studies have investigated the hybrid technique. In this study, we compared imaging and clinical outcomes of the MR, GB, and hybrid techniques in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).


METHODS
From January 2016 to January 2019, we conducted a retrospective study on 90 patients who underwent unilateral primary TKA; 30 received the MR technique, 30 received the GB technique, and 30 received the hybrid technique. Radiological outcomes, including joint line level, mechanical alignment of the lower limb, positions of the femoral and tibial components, and rotation of the femoral component, and clinical outcomes, including the visual analog scale score for pain, the Knee Society Score, and the range of motion, were assessed among the three groups. One-way analysis of variance and Dunnett's test were performed for normally distributed data. Kruskal-Wallis H test and Dunn-Bonferroni test were conducted for non-normally distributed data.


RESULTS
No significant difference in the mechanical alignment (p = 0.151) and the positions of the tibial and femoral components (p = 0.230 for α angle, p = 0.517 for β angle, p = 0.686 for femoral flexion angle, and p = 0.918 for tibial slope angle) was found among the three groups. No significant difference in the elevation of the joint line between the MR and the hybrid groups was found (2.1 ± 0.3 mm vs 2.1 ± 0.1 mm, p = 0.627), but the GB group (2.8 ± 0.2 mm) differed significantly from the other two groups (p < 0.001). Although rotation of the femoral component in the GB group was larger than that of the MR and hybrid groups, the difference was not significant (1.8° ± 0.2° vs 1.7° ± 0.3° vs. 1.7° ± 0.2°, p = 0.101). The clinical outcomes were not significantly different (p > 0.05), although the results in the hybrid group were slightly higher.


CONCLUSION
The hybrid technique helped to restore the mechanical alignment of the lower limb and realize optimal positions of the femoral and tibial components without significant differences relative to the MR and GB techniques. The hybrid technique was more helpful for maintaining the original height of the joint line, which was similar to the MR technique. Additionally, although the improvement in the clinical outcomes in the hybrid group was slightly higher, it was not significantly different among the three groups.