Computerized Versus Traditional Approaches for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Quantitative Analysis of Knee Society Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

Author:

Namireddy Srikar R1,Gill Saran S1ORCID,Yaqub Yousuf1,Ramkumar Pratik1

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London London UK

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common surgery for osteoarthritis, with increasing prevalence expected in the near future. This systematic review and meta‐analysis compared the effectiveness of computerized TKA versus traditional TKA, focusing on postoperative outcomes measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the Knee Society score (KSS). A search on PubMed and Cochrane databases on November 14, 2023 for retrospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded data on WOMAC and KSS. The search strategy was predefined, and methodological quality of studies was critically appraised. Two researchers extracted data. Unpaired t‐testing assessed the mean monthly changes in KSS and WOMAC for computer‐aided versus traditional TKA. Review Manager 5.3 was used for data synthesis and analysis. Out of 729 records, five RCTs enrolling 339 patients were eligible and analyzed using a random effects meta‐analysis. The mean monthly ΔKSS score differed significantly between the traditional and computerized groups (11.47 ± 8.76 vs. 9.26 ± 6.05, respectively; p < 0.01). However, the pooled mean difference estimate showed no significant differences (D = 0.20, 95% CI = −0.53 to 0.93, p = 0.59), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 85%, p < 0.001). The mean monthly ΔWOMAC score also differed significantly (−14.18 ± 21.54 vs. −18.43 ± 20.65, respectively; p < 0.05), but again, no significant differences were found in the pooled estimate (D = 0.17, 95% CI = −0.46 to 0.79, p = 0.60), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 28%, p = 0.24).There is no significant difference in KSS or WOMAC outcomes between traditional and computerized TKA. The study suggests the need for further research with longer follow‐up periods, more timepoints, and a broader range of patient outcome measures to fully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Publisher

Wiley

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