INTRODUCTION: Currently, there is no consensus as to whether total knee replacement(TKR) following high tibial osteotomy(HTO) provides similar postoperative outcomes as compared to TKR without previous HTO. Previous studies have provided limited evidence to small sample sizes and methodological inappropriateness. METHODS: A systematic search process was conducted utilising PRISMA guidelines. Electronic, peer reviewed and published literatures were searched. Databases searched include Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, PubMed and cross references. Methodological appropriateness was assessed with Papadokastakis system and Critical Appraisal Skills questionnaire. Data were analysed for both clinical and statistical homogeneity. Meta analytic pooling was subsequently performed. RESULTS: 11 studies including 2170 TKR procedures were analysed for systematic review. The study (TKR following previous HTO) and control (TKR without previous HTO) groups were adequately matched for age, sex ratio and follow-up. Meta analysis of six studies utilising KSS system and four studies utilising HSS system showed no significant (p > 0.05) difference between the two groups. Complications also showed no significant difference between the two groups. At an average follow-up of 7.2 years, with revision arthroplasty for any cause as the endpoint, survivorship for the study and control groups was 95 and 97 %, respectively. For revision arthroplasty with aseptic loosening as the end point, the survivorship was 98 % for both groups. CONCLUSION: Systematic review and meta analysis suggested that TKR following HTO provides similar outcomes as compared to TKR without previous HTO. Therefore, a previous HTO does not negatively influence a future TKR, though the conversion process of HTO to TKR is technically challenging. Systematic review also identified paucity in prospective and long term studies.
INTRODUCTION: Currently, there is no consensus as to whether total knee replacement(TKR) following high tibial osteotomy(HTO) provides similar postoperative outcomes as compared to TKR without previous HTO. Previous studies have provided limited evidence to small sample sizes and methodological inappropriateness. METHODS: A systematic search process was conducted utilising PRISMA guidelines. Electronic, peer reviewed and published literatures were searched. Databases searched include Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, PubMed and cross references. Methodological appropriateness was assessed with Papadokastakis system and Critical Appraisal Skills questionnaire. Data were analysed for both clinical and statistical homogeneity. Meta analytic pooling was subsequently performed. RESULTS: 11 studies including 2170 TKR procedures were analysed for systematic review. The study (TKR following previous HTO) and control (TKR without previous HTO) groups were adequately matched for age, sex ratio and follow-up. Meta analysis of six studies utilising KSS system and four studies utilising HSS system showed no significant (p > 0.05) difference between the two groups. Complications also showed no significant difference between the two groups. At an average follow-up of 7.2 years, with revision arthroplasty for any cause as the endpoint, survivorship for the study and control groups was 95 and 97 %, respectively. For revision arthroplasty with aseptic loosening as the end point, the survivorship was 98 % for both groups. CONCLUSION: Systematic review and meta analysis suggested that TKR following HTO provides similar outcomes as compared to TKR without previous HTO. Therefore, a previous HTO does not negatively influence a future TKR, though the conversion process of HTO to TKR is technically challenging. Systematic review also identified paucity in prospective and long term studies.
Authors: Rachel M Frank; Simon Lee; Shelby Sumner; Justin Griffin; Timothy Leroux; Nikhil N Verma; Brian J Cole; Gregory P Nicholson; Anthony A Romeo Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2018-08-07