Literature DB >> 30081394

Similar Outcome, but Different Surgical Requirement in Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty following High Tibial Osteotomy and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

Yong Seuk Lee1, Hyun Jung Kim2, Su Jung Mok1, O-Sung Lee3.   

Abstract

The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to find out how effective any subsequent conversion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) would be after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and which is better in outcomes. A rigorous and systematic approach was used. Each of the selected studies was evaluated for methodological quality. Data were extracted by the following standardized protocol: study design, level of evidence, cases enrolled, age, sex ratio, follow-up, kind of index surgery, type of index surgery, average time to failure, mode of failure, surgical data, preclinical score, post-clinical score, and major related complications. Nineteen articles were included in the final analysis. In conversion TKA following UKA, revision components (metal augment, bone graft, and stem) were frequently used, and thicker polyethylene was used comparing to the primary TKA. In the conversion TKA following HTO, only stem was more common (relative risk of revision component UKA:HTO = 0.57:0.07). The estimated range of motions (ROM) of conversion TKA following HTO and UKA was 107.75° (101.93-113.58°) and 111.84° (108.41-115.26°), respectively (p > 0.05). The knee scores of conversion TKA following HTO and UKA were 89.10 (86.45, 91.75) and 85.48 (79.82, 91.14), respectively (p > 0.05). The function scores were 78.60 (72.44, 84.76) and 75.60 (69.85, 81.35), respectively (p > 0.05). Clinical outcome was similar between conversion TKA following HTO and UKA. However, conversion TKA after UKA required more revision components and thicker polyethylene, while conversion TKA after HTO sometimes required a stem to bypass the osteotomy gap. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30081394     DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1666999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Knee Surg        ISSN: 1538-8506            Impact factor:   2.757


  4 in total

1.  [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

2.  Reduced survival of total knee arthroplasty after previous unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with previous high tibial osteotomy: a propensity-score weighted mid-term cohort study based on 2,133 observations from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry.

Authors:  Anders El-Galaly; Poul T Nielsen; Andreas Kappel; Steen L Jensen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 3.  Clinical Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty after High Tibial Osteotomy and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gaobo Shen; Danhong Shen; Yuan Fang; Xuefei Li; Longkang Cui; Bing Wei; Lianguo Wu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with lower pain levels but inferior range of motion, compared with high tibial osteotomy: a systematic overview of meta-analyses.

Authors:  Hangyu Ping; Jiaxin Wen; Yubo Liu; Haifeng Li; Xin Wang; Xiangpeng Kong; Wei Chai
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 2.677

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.