Literature DB >> 27172863

The Role of Preoperative Patient Characteristics on Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis Critique.

Jelle P van der List1, Harshvardhan Chawla1, Hendrik A Zuiderbaan2, Andrew D Pearle1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1989, Kozinn and Scott introduced strict exclusion criteria for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Because outcomes have improved with modern techniques and implants, these criteria have now been challenged. Therefore, the goal was to assess the role of these criteria on (1) functional outcomes and (2) revision rates of medial UKA. The hypothesis was that, with modern surgical techniques and implants, these traditional exclusion criteria are no longer strict contraindications for UKA.
METHODS: Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane and annual registries were searched for studies comparing UKA results in subgroups: age (young vs old), gender (male vs female), body mass index (obese vs nonobese), present vs absent patellofemoral osteoarthritis, and intact vs deficient anterior cruciate ligament.
RESULTS: Thirty-one comparative cohort studies (7 level II and 24 level III/IV studies) and 6 registries reported outcomes in 17,147 patients and revision rates in 285,472 patients. Females had inferior functional outcomes compared to males (odds ratio [OR], 4.03; 95% CI, 1.77-6.30). Furthermore, younger patients (in studies: OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.19; in registries: OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.70-2.57) and females (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.21) had increased likelihood for revision. No increased likelihood for inferior outcomes or revisions was detected in patients with obesity, preoperative patellofemoral osteoarthritis, or anterior cruciate ligament deficiency.
CONCLUSION: Findings of increased revision risk in younger patients and increased revision risk with inferior outcomes in females give a more nuanced perspective on historical criteria, such that surgical decision-making may be based on UKA outcome data for subgroups rather than strict exclusion criteria.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI; Kozinn and Scott; age; gender; selection criteria; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27172863     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  20 in total

Review 1.  [Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].

Authors:  J Beckmann; M T Hirschmann; G Matziolis; J Holz; R V Eisenhart-Rothe; C Becher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  [Focal femoral resurfacing and unicompartmental knee replacement : Between osteotomy and total knee replacement].

Authors:  Philipp Henle; Matthias J Feucht; Christian Stärke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Robotic unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a commentary on a recently published level 1 study.

Authors:  Alexander H Jinnah; Ashley Multani; Riyaz H Jinnah; Johannes F Plate
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-10

Review 4.  [Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly].

Authors:  M Weber; F Völlner; A Benditz; T Schwarz; M Wörner; B Craiovan; T Renkawitz; J Grifka
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 6.  Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Harshvardhan Chawla; Leo Joskowicz; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis for the treatment of localized cartilage defects of the femoral condyles: a systematic review of clinical studies.

Authors:  Andreas Fuchs; Helge Eberbach; Kaywan Izadpanah; Gerrit Bode; Norbert P Südkamp; Matthias J Feucht
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-09-16       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Body mass index changes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty do not adversely influence patient outcomes.

Authors:  Zhan Xia; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Graham Seow-Hng Goh; Hwei Chi Chong; Ngai Nung Lo; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  [Research progress in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  Dong Wu; Minzhi Yang; Zheng Cao; Xiangpeng Kong; Yi Wang; Renwen Guo; Wei Chai
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-02-15

10.  Which do patients prefer, unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Nicholas Danford; Matthew Grosso; Matthew S Heller; Taylor Murtaugh; Roshan P Shah; H John Cooper; Akshay Lakra; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-08-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.