切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华关节外科杂志(电子版)

中华关节外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (06) : 697 -707. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2025.06.008

荟萃分析

生物型与骨水泥型单髁假体治疗内侧间室膝关节炎的比较
杨浩1, 杨佩2, 刘豪1,3, 曾小超1, 许文杰1,3, 张旭1,3, 熊执政1,3,†()   
  1. 1414000　湖南师范大学附属岳阳医院骨科
    2710004　西安交通大学第二附属医院骨科
    3414000　岳阳市人民医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-05 出版日期:2025-12-01
  • 通信作者: 熊执政

Comparative study of cementless prosthesis versus cemented prosthesis in treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis

Hao Yang1, Pei Yang2, Hao Liu1,3, Xiaochao Zeng1, Wenjie Xu1,3, Xu Zhang1,3, Zhizheng Xiong1,3,†()   

  1. 1Department of Orthopedics, Yueyang Hospital Affiliated to Hunan Normal University, Yueyang 414000, China
    2Department of Orthopedics, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710004, China
    3Department of Orthopedics, Yueyang People’s Hospital, Yueyang 414000, China
  • Received:2025-02-05 Published:2025-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Zhizheng Xiong
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

杨浩, 杨佩, 刘豪, 曾小超, 许文杰, 张旭, 熊执政. 生物型与骨水泥型单髁假体治疗内侧间室膝关节炎的比较[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 697-707.

Hao Yang, Pei Yang, Hao Liu, Xiaochao Zeng, Wenjie Xu, Xu Zhang, Zhizheng Xiong. Comparative study of cementless prosthesis versus cemented prosthesis in treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(06): 697-707.

目的

本文旨在探讨生物型与水泥型单髁假体治疗内侧间室膝关节病的疗效的差异。

方法

本研究通过检索英文数据库PubMed、荷兰医学文摘数据库（Embase）、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science以及中文数据库知网、万方和维普，收集自数据库建立以来至2024年9月的所有关于生物型与水泥型单髁置换术用于治疗内侧间室膝关节病的临床随机对照研究（RCT）及临床对照试验（CCT）。在文献筛选过程中，排除重复文献、质量较低的文献、观察指标不符合的文献以及无法获取全文的文献。纳入研究的文献质量通过Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表（NOS）进行评估。最终使用RevMan5.4软件对收集的数据进行Meta分析，比较两种不同假体在手术时间、术后膝关节活动范围、末次随访时的牛津膝关节功能评分（OKS）、并发症发生率、翻修率以及1年和5年假体生存率等方面的差异。

结果

共纳入17篇文献，包括RCT5篇和CCT12篇，共39 464例病例，其中生物型单髁置换20 405例，骨水泥型单髁置换19 059例。结果显示，与骨水泥型单髁置换相比，生物型单髁置换的手术时间更短[均数差（MD）=9.08，95%置信区间（CI）（6.89，11.28），P<0.001]。1年假体生存率略低[比值比（OR）=1.28，95% CI（1.02，1.61），P=0.03]；生物型单髁置换的5年假体生存率更高[OR=0.73，95% CI（0.63，0.84），P<0.0001]。两者在术后膝关节活动范围[MD=-1.22，95% CI（-4.83，2.38），P=0.51]和并发症发生率[OR=0.83，95% CI（0.68，1.02），P=0.08]方面的差异无统计学意义。

结论

生物型单髁置换术具有手术时间更短、翻修率更低及五年假体生存率更高等优点，在术后膝关节活动范围和随访期间并发症方面与骨水泥单髁置换差别不大。

关键词: 骨关节炎, 关节成形术，置换，膝, Meta分析
Objective

To evaluate operative timeand postoperative efficacy between cementless and cemented prostheses for media knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) were searched in medical electronic databases, including PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), from the establishment of the databases up to September 2024. Exclusion criteria:duplicates, low-quality studies, non-compliant outcome measures, and unavailable full texts. The quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.

Results

A total of 17 studies (five RCTs, 12 CCTs) were included, involving 39 464 cases (20 405 cementless vs. 19 059 cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasties demonstrated that cementless prostheses had shorter operative time [mean difference (MD) =9.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (6.89, 11.28), P<0.001], slightly lower one-year survival rates[OR=1.28, 95% CI (1.02, 1.61), P=0.03], higher 5-year survival rates [odds ratio (OR) =0.73, 95% CI (0.63, 0.84), P<0.0001]. No statistically significant difference was found in postoperative range of motion [MD= -1.22, 95% CI (-4.83, 2.38), P=0.51] and complication rates[OR=0.83, 95% CI (0.68, 1.02), P=0.08]between the two groups during follow-up.

Conclusion

Cementless prosthesis presents many advantages such as shorter operative time, lower revision rates during follow-up, and higher five-year survival rates, while postoperative range of motion and complication rates during follow-up between cementless and cemented prostheses may not be very different .

Key words: Osteoarthritis, Arthroplasty, replacement, knee, Meta-analysis
图1 文献检索流程图
Figure 1 Flow chart of literature screening
图2 随机对照研究偏倚风险评价图
Figure 2 Assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials
图3 随机对照研究偏倚风险图
Figure 3 Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials
表1 纳入文献基本特征
Table 1 General characteristics of the included studies
作者Author 年份Year 研究类型Study design 国家Country 男/女（Male/female） 年龄[岁，M （SD）]Age（year） 随访时间（个月）Follow-up time （month）
水泥型Cemented 生物型Cementless 水泥型Cemented 生物型Cementless 水泥型Cemented 生物型Cementless
Bayoumi[12] 2024 R、M 荷兰 7 917（3 638/4 279） 10 862（4 986/5 876） 64.5（8.5） 64.8（8.8） 12 12
管梦颖[13] 2023 RCT 中国 32（11/21） 32（6/26） 68.3（7.6） 65.8（7.6） 12 12
王武炼[14] 2023 R 中国 47（23/24） 43（22/21） 67.9（6.1） 65.6（7.0） 18 18
史思峰[15] 2023 RCT 中国 31（17/14） 31（16/15） 62.37（8.32） 61.25（7.46） 12 12
Aslan[16] 2022 R 土耳其 47（4/37） 38（9/28） 59.3（5.8） 58.0（6.4） 39.8（8.5） 27.1（3.1）
Martin[17] 2022 CS 英国 267（154/113） 278（175/103） 65.6（9.7） 65.50（11.7） 60 60
Gifstad[18] 2022 P 挪威 187（101/86） 261（155/106） 64（9.6） 64（9.5） 12 12
Paugchawee[19] 2021 R 泰国 466（397/69） 36（32/4） 65.4（8.2） 56.6（3.8） 84.6（18.7） 64.4（10.5）
Horsager[20] 2019 RCT、M 丹麦 55（30/25） 25（18/7） 63（9） 65（10） 60 60
Knifsund[21] 2019 R 芬兰 2 279（891/1 388） 1 076（475/601） 62.1（9.6） 61.5（9.3） 88.8 32.4
Mohammad[22] 2019 M、R 英国 7 407（-） 7 407（-） 65 65 48 48
Panzram[23] 2017 R 德国 27（15/12） 27（15/12） 61.4（7.6） 62.4（7.5） 60 60
Kerens[24] 2017 M、R 荷兰 61（32/29） 51（23/28） 63（46~88） 62（45~82） 53（26~70） 35（12~51）
Kendrick[25] 2015 RCT 英国 21（10/11） 22（13/9） 65.4（49.5~79.2） 67.6（49.1-81.6） 24 24
Pandit[26] 2013 RCT 英国 32（20/12） 30（16/14） 63.8（46~78） 64.7（45~82） 60 60
Akan[27] 2013 R 土耳其 141（20/100） 122（11/104） 64.1（8.0） 64.1（8.6） 42（24~52） 30（24~36）
Daniilidis[28] 2009 R 德国 42（4/38） 64（14/50） 81（7） 73（7） 96 96
表2 非随机对照研究质量评价
Table 2 Literature quality evaluation form for non-case control studies
纳入研究Study 年份Year 队列代表性Representativeness 病例来源Source 干预的确定性Certainty 研究开始时相关疾病Condition 队列间可比性Comparability 结果测定方法Ascertainment 随访时间足够Adequate duration 随访完整性Completeness 得分Score
Bayoumi[12] 2024 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 9
王武炼[14] 2023 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Aslan[16] 2022 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Martin[17] 2022 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
Gifstad[18] 2022 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Paugchawee[19] 2021 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8
Knifsund[21] 2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
Mohammad[22] 2019 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
Panzram[23] 2017 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 8
Kerens[24] 2017 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Akan[27] 2013 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Daniilidis[28] 2009 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 6
图4 生物型与水泥型假体手术时间森林图
Figure 4 Forest plot of the operation time of cementless and cemented prostheses
图5 生物型与水泥型假体术后膝关节ROM（活动范围）森林图
Figure 5 Forest plot of the postoperative knee ROM (range of motion) of cementless and cemented prostheses
图6 生物型与水泥型假体术后末次随访OKS（牛津膝评分）森林图
Figure 6 Forest plot of the OKS (Oxford knee score) at the last follow-up of cementless and cemented prostheses
图7 生物型与水泥型假体在随访期间并发症发生率森林图
Figure 7 Forest plot of the incomplication rates at the follow-up of cementless and cemented prostheses
图8 生物型与水泥型假体术后随访期间翻修率森林图
Figure 8 Forest plot of the revision rates at the follow-up of cementless and cemented prostheses
图9 生物型与水泥型假体术后1年假体生存率森林图
Figure 9 Forest plot of the survival rates one year after surgery of cementless and cemented prostheses
图10 生物型与水泥型假体术后5年假体生存率森林图
Figure 10 Forest plot of the survival rates at five years after surgery of cementless and cemented prostheses
图11 各指标漏斗图。图A为手术时间；图B为术后活动后范围；图C为末次随访OKS；图D为随访期间并发症；图E为随访期间翻修率；图F为1年假体生存率；图G为5年假体生存率注：SE-标准误；MD-均数差；OR-比值比；OKS-牛津膝关节评分
Figure 11 Funnel plots for publication bias. A is operation time; B is range of motion; C is OKS at the last follow-up; D is revision rates at the follow-up; E is image of revision rates at the follow-up; F is image of survival rates at one year; G is image of survival rates at five yearNote: SE-standard error; MD-mean difference; OR-odds ratio; OKS-Oxford knee score
图12 手术时间按年份分组的森林图
Figure 12 Forest plot of subgroup analysis of different year in operative time
图13 手术时间按国家分组的森林图
Figure 13 Forest plot of subgroup analysis of different countries in operation time
[1]
Liu P, Zhang C, Lu Z, et al. Global research status and trends of UKA for knee osteoarthritis: a bibliometric analysis[J/OL]. Arthroplasty, 2020, 2（1）: 20. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-020-00039-3.
[2]
Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, et al. Knee replacement[J]. Lancet, 2012, 379（9823）: 1331-1340.
[3]
谭红略, 于进洋, 史小涛, 等. 膝关节内侧单髁置换术后并发症的诊治进展[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志（电子版）, 2023, 17（2）: 267-275.
[4]
Chang A, Hurwitz D, Dunlop D, et al. The relationship between toe-out angle during gait and progression of medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis[J]. Ann Rheum Dis, 2007, 66（10）: 1271-1275.
[5]
杨光中, 安帅, 李征, 等. 生物型牛津单髁膝关节置换术应用进展[J]. 实用骨科杂志, 2020, 26（12）: 1123-1126.
[6]
Chassin EP, Mikosz RP, Andriacchi TP, et al. Functional analysis of cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 1996, 11（5）: 553-559.
[7]
Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, et al. Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2017, 25（3）: 736-745.
[8]
Basso M, Arnaldi E, Bruno AAM, et al. Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature[J]. Musculoskelet Surg, 2021, 105（2）: 131-138.
[9]
Bruni D, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, et al. High rate of implant loosening for uncemented resurfacing-type medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24（10）: 3175-3182.
[10]
de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Davidson DC, et al. Joint registry approach for identification of outlier prostheses[J]. Acta Orthop, 2013, 84（4）: 348-352.
[11]
Wyatt MC, Frampton CF, Whitehouse MR, et al. Benchmarking total knee replacement constructs using noninferiority analysis: the New Zealand joint registry study[J/OL]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2021, 22（1）: 721. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04606-w.
[12]
Bayoumi T, Burger JA, van der List JP, et al. Comparison of the early postoperative outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. Bone Jt Open, 2024, 5（5）: 401-410.
[13]
管梦颖, 涂意辉, 薛华明, 等. 生物型与骨水泥型单髁置换术的早期效果比较[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志（电子版）, 2023, 17（1）: 129-135.
[14]
王武炼, 林文韬, 王志伟, 等. 牛津全生物型假体膝关节单髁置换的早期临床疗效[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2023, 43（15）: 1022-1030.
[15]
史思峰, 林强, 周冰, 等. 生物型与骨水泥型股骨髁假体单髁置换治疗膝关节内侧间室骨关节炎的比较[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2023, 27（18）: 2848-2853.
[16]
Aslan H, Atİlla HA, Büyükdoğan K, et al. Comparisons of the radiolucent lines between cemented and cementless Oxford unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a non-designer group report[J]. Bezmialem Sci, 2022, 10（2）: 199-205.
[17]
Martin B, Rahman A, Jenkins C, et al. Comparison of five-year clinical outcomes of 524 cemented and cementless medial unicompartmental knee replacements[J]. Knee, 2022, 34: 89-97.
[18]
Gifstad T, Nordskar JJ, Egeberg T, et al. Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results in higher pain levels compared to the cemented technique: a prospective register study[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2022, 30（8）: 2738-2743.
[19]
Paugchawee J, Ruangsomboon P, Narkbunnam RCKPC. Complications, Reasons for Reoperation, and 5-Year Prosthesis Survival Compared between the Cemented and Cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Thai Patients [J]. J Med Assoc Thai, 2023, 106（2）: 207-212.
[20]
Horsager K, Madsen F, Odgaard A, et al. Similar polyethylene wear between cemented and cementless Oxford medial UKA: a 5-year follow-up randomized controlled trial on 79 patients using radiostereometry[J]. Acta Orthop, 2019, 90（1）: 67-73.
[21]
Knifsund J, Reito A, Haapakoski J, et al. Short-term survival of cementless Oxford unicondylar knee arthroplasty based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register[J]. Knee, 2019, 26（3）: 768-773.
[22]
Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, et al. Comparison of the 10-year outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man[J]. Acta Orthop, 2020, 91（1）: 76-81.
[23]
Panzram B, Bertlich I, Reiner T, et al. Results after cementless medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement-incidence of radiolucent lines[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2017, 12（1）: e0170324. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170324.
[24]
Kerens B, Schotanus MGM, Boonen B, et al. Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2017, 25（3）: 703-709.
[25]
Kendrick BJL, Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, et al. Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial[J]. Bone Joint J, 2015, 97-B（2）: 185-191.
[26]
Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJL, et al. Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013, 95（15）: 1365-1372.
[27]
Akan B, Karaguven D, Guclu B, et al. Cemented versus uncemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is there a difference?[J/OL]. Adv Orthop, 2013, 2013: 245915. DOI: 10.1155/2013/245915.
[28]
Daniilidis K, Skwara A, Skuginna A, et al. Comparison of medium-term clinical and radiological outcome between cemented and cementless medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. Z Orthop Unfall, 2009, 147（2）: 188-193.
[29]
王晓斌. 骨水泥和非骨水泥型人工全髋关节置换对血液流变学影响的研究[J]. 中国医学工程, 2009, 17（3）: 226-228.
[30]
Khaw FM, Kirk LMG, Morris RW, et al. A randomised, controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement. Ten-yearsurvivalanalysis[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2002, 84（5）: 658-666.
[31]
Clark M, Campbell DG, Kiss G, et al. Reintervention after mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010, 468（2）: 576-580.
[32]
Kendrick BJL, Longino D, Pandit H, et al. Polyethylene wear in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval study of 47 bearings[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2010, 92（3）: 367-373.
[33]
Seeger JB, Haas D, Jäger S, et al. Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented Tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2012, 20（6）: 1087-1091.
[34]
Gupta V, Kejriwal R, Frampton C. Revision following cemented and uncemented Oxford-III primary medial unicompartmental knee replacements: a 19-year analysis from the New Zealand joint registry[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2020, 102（20）: 1777-1783.
[35]
Mohammad HR, Bullock GS, Kennedy JA, et al. Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2021, 29（10）: 3229-3245.
[36]
Burger JA, Zuiderbaan HA, Sierevelt IN, et al. Risk of revision for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty according to fixation and bearing type: short- to mid-term results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register[J]. Bone Joint J, 2021, 103-B（7）: 1261-1269.
[37]
Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Nakano N, et al. Short distance from the keel to the posterior tibial cortex is associated with fracture after cementless Oxford UKA in Asian patients[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2022, 30（4）: 1220-1230.
[38]
Inui H, Taketomi S, Yamagami R, et al. Femoral migration of the cementless Oxford which caused the bearing dislocation: a report of two cases[J/OL]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2020, 21（1）: 356. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03385-0.
[39]
Eckert JA, Bitsch RG, Sonntag R, et al. The primary stability of the femoral component in cemented single and twin peg Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty under adverse conditions[J]. Bone Joint Res, 2022, 11（2）: 82-90.
[40]
Koster LA, Meinardi JE, Kaptein BL, et al. Two-year RSA migration results of symmetrical and asymmetrical tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Bone Joint J, 2021, 103-B（5）: 855-863.
[1] 夏堃, 佘蔡楠, 杨昊天, 陶然, 陆跃, 马洪冬. 膝外翻全膝关节置换术后下肢力线与疗效的相关性[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 677-683.
[2] 许烨, 崔丽美, 计可欣, 叶丽霞, 赵雪红. 急诊科患者非计划重返发生率的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华危重症医学杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(05): 397-402.
[3] 国家骨科医学中心保膝联盟, 中国老年保健协会骨关节保护与健康分会, 单髁置换术后感染抗生素使用专家共识工作组. 单髁置换术后假体周围感染的抗生素使用专家共识（2025版）[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2025, 20(06): 476-489.
[4] 杨浩, 王春岭, 席少华, 尹素然. 富血小板血浆联合关节镜手术治疗膝骨关节炎的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2025, 20(06): 499-504.
[5] 熊海波, 张千秋, 李叔强, 曾云龙, 邓力宾, 袁家天, 吕波, 李俊. 经脐单孔和双孔腹腔镜下治疗小儿腹股沟疝疗效的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 694-700.
[6] 中国康复医学会特殊环境作业损伤防治与康复专业委员会. 高原低压低氧环境下骨关节炎相关慢性继发性肌肉骨骼疼痛管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2025, 18(05): 665-672.
[7] 张宇涵, 吴添庆, 高汶卿, 郑梽楷, 贺珉睿, 周仲国. 不可切除性肝内胆管癌不同治疗方式疗效和安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 939-947.
[8] 吴哲境, 李敬东. ICG荧光成像引导下腹腔镜肝切除术治疗肝癌的安全性和有效性Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 852-859.
[9] 陈泓莉, 任飞鸿, 梁捧元, 王宇阳, 占永立. 包醛氧淀粉治疗慢性肾衰竭的效果及安全性Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 309-316.
[10] 郑富文, 马阳, 唐金烁, 彭亚臣, 左建林. 导航TKA术后引流放置与否对患者预后影响：一项队列研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(06): 329-336.
[11] 高艳龙, 何建平, 刘爱华, 王月鹏. 无头加压螺钉与微型钢板内固定治疗掌指骨骨折效果对比的荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(06): 365-371.
[12] 贺方正, 吴涛, 廖长胜, 李锡勇, 牛萌煊, 韩鹏飞. 创伤后骨关节炎模型大鼠血浆中microRNA特征组学研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(05): 257-270.
[13] 再米拉·依力哈木, 蒋升, 艾比拜·玉素甫. SGLT2抑制剂与肾结石风险：一项荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 446-453.
[14] 肖文韬, 谢培森, 康清源, 张克石, 关振鹏. 对家族聚集性膝骨关节炎家系的基因测序及在普通人群中的初步验证[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 337-345.
[15] 谢培森, 张绍龙, 张克石, 关振鹏. Circ_0136474增强软骨细胞自噬抑制骨关节炎软骨缺损[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 374-381.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号

AI
小
编
AI小编
你好！我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编，有什么可以帮您的吗？