Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a better choice than total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author:

Xia Kuanyu1,Min Lang1,Xie Wenqing23,Yang Guang23,Yon Dong Keon45,Lee Seung Won6,Koyanagi Ai7,Jacob Louis789,Smith Lee10,Shin Jae Il11,Rahmati Masoud1213,Xiao Wenfeng23,Li Yusheng23

Affiliation:

1. Deparment of Orthopedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China

2. Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China

3. National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China

4. Center for Digital Health, Medical Science Research Institute, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

5. Department of Pediatrics, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

6. Department of Precision Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea

7. Research and Development Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Dr. Antoni Pujadas, 08830 Barcelona, Spain

8. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), ISCIII, 28029 Madrid, Spain

9. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Lariboisière-Fernand Widal Hospital, AP-HP, University Paris Cité, Paris, France

10. Centre for Health, Performance, and Wellbeing, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

11. Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

12. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

13. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Vali-E-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

Abstract

Abstract Background: The choice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) vs. total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical results of UKA and TKA for treating unicompartmental KOA. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published up to January 2, 2023. The literature was rigorously screened to include only RCTs comparing UKA and TKA for unicompartmental KOA. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate the mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the Cochrane standards. Results: Thirteen publications involving 683 UKAs and 683 TKAs were analyzed. Except for one study with a follow-up period of 15 years, all outcome measures reported were within 5 years of follow-up. Meta-analysis showed better knee recovery (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.01–1.45; P <0.00001), greater knee function (MD: 1.78; 95% CI: 0.34–3.22; P = 0.02), less pain (MD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.43–1.06; P <0.00001), and better health status (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 0.81–6.69; P = 0.01) after UKA than TKA. However, considering the minimal clinically important difference values for these variables, the findings were not clinically relevant. Moreover, UKA patients had fewer complications (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45–0.78; P = 0.0002) and shorter hospital stays (MD: –0.89; 95% CI: –1.57 to –0.22; P = 0.009) than did TKA patients. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative range of movement, revision, failure, operation time, and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: In terms of clinical efficacy, there was no obvious advantage of UKA over TKA in the surgical treatment of knee OA when considering the minimal clinically important difference. The main advantage of UKA over TKA is that it leads to fewer complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. It is ideal to perform prospective studies with longer follow-up periods to fully evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures in the future.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3