Literature DB >> 35669023

High Tibial Osteotomy Versus Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Unicompartmental Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ishith Seth1,2, Gabriella Bulloch3, Nimish Seth4, Damien Gibson1, Anish Rastogi1, Kirk Lower1, Aaron Rodwell1, Warwick Bruce5.   

Abstract

Purpose: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are commonly performed procedures for the treatment of compartmental knee osteoarthritis; however, the optimal procedure remains controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the functional outcomes and assess complications and revision rates between the two techniques.
Methods: We searched electronic databases for relevant studies comparing HTO versus UKA for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Continuous data as visual analogue scale (VAS), range of motion, and free walking speed were pooled as mean differences (MDs). Dichotomous data as functional knee outcomes, complications, and revision were pooled as odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence interval (CI), using R software for windows.
Results: Twenty-five studies involving 8185 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that HTO was associated with higher risk of complications (OR = 2.47, 95% CI [1.52, 4.04]), poorer functional results (excellent/good) (OR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.21, 0.49]), and greater range of motion (MD = 7.05, 95% CI [2.41, 11.68]) compared to UKA. No significant differences were found between the compared groups in terms of VAS (MD = 0.14, 95% CI [- 0.08, 0.36]), revision rates (OR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.65, 2.60]), and free walking speed (MD = - 0.05, 95% CI [- 0.11, 0.00]).
Conclusion: This study showed that UKA achieved fewer complications, better functional outcomes, and less range of motion compared to HTO. No significant differences were detected between HTO and UKA in terms of VAS and revision rate. Treatment options should be personalized to each patient considering factors such as their age, activities of daily living, their body mass index, and severity of osteoarthritis. Level of evidence: II. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00620-9. © Indian Orthopaedics Association 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Compartmental knee osteoarthritis; High tibial osteotomy; Meta-analysis; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Year:  2022        PMID: 35669023      PMCID: PMC9123137          DOI: 10.1007/s43465-022-00620-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Orthop        ISSN: 0019-5413            Impact factor:   1.033


  55 in total

1.  The impact of a high tibial valgus osteotomy and unicondylar medial arthroplasty on the treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gunter Spahn; Gunther O Hofmann; Lars Victor von Engelhardt; Mengxia Li; Henning Neubauer; Hans Michael Klinger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Unicompartmental osteoarthritis in the active patient: the role of high tibial osteotomy.

Authors:  Annunziato Amendola
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 3.  Unicondylar knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  S C Kozinn; R Scott
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Age predicts outcome of high-tibial osteotomy.

Authors:  K Trieb; J Grohs; B Hanslik-Schnabel; T Stulnig; J Panotopoulos; A Wanivenhaus
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2005-07-12       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Todd Borus; Thomas Thornhill
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.020

6.  Clinical validation of self-reported osteoarthritis.

Authors:  L M March; J M Schwarz; B H Carfrae; E Bagge
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.576

7.  Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results.

Authors:  Wolf Petersen; Sebastian Metzlaff
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  T E McAlindon; R R Bannuru; M C Sullivan; N K Arden; F Berenbaum; S M Bierma-Zeinstra; G A Hawker; Y Henrotin; D J Hunter; H Kawaguchi; K Kwoh; S Lohmander; F Rannou; E M Roos; M Underwood
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 6.576

9.  A mid term comparison of open wedge high tibial osteotomy vs unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  Ryohei Takeuchi; Yusuke Umemoto; Masato Aratake; Haruhiko Bito; Izumi Saito; Ken Kumagai; Yohei Sasaki; Yasushi Akamatsu; Hiroyuki Ishikawa; Tomihisa Koshino; Tomoyuki Saito
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 10.  Comparison between Closing-Wedge and Opening-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients with Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hao Sun; Lin Zhou; Fengsheng Li; Jun Duan
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 2.757

View more
  1 in total

1.  High Tibial Osteotomy Versus Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Unicompartmental Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ishith Seth; Gabriella Bulloch; Nimish Seth; Damien Gibson; Anish Rastogi; Kirk Lower; Aaron Rodwell; Warwick Bruce
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 1.033

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.