Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilising prostheses for primary total knee arthroplasty in treating osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
{"title":"Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilising prostheses for primary total knee arthroplasty in treating osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials","authors":"Siraj Benbarka , Saja Benbarka","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2023.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Total knee replacements (TKRs) are successful operations that utilities several operative techniques including cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilising (PS) prostheses. To date, neither approach has proved superior. Techniques and implants are under constant evolution and new trials are published. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the current risks and benefits of these two approaches so that an up-to-date clinical recommendation can be given as to which approach if any is superior.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, EBCSO, and Google Scholar. Risk of bias was assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias criteria. Meta-analysisusing the random effects model was performed by the STATA software and results were displayed on forest plots. Sensitivity analysis was performed for possible causes of heterogeneity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span><span>From 1164 studies, 15 eligible trials were included. Meta-analysis showed that the CR approach had significantly lower Range of Motion and HSS scores. There was no significant difference in KSS, </span>OKS<span>, VAS, or </span></span>WOMAC scores. Blood loss was significantly less in the CR group. However, there was no significant difference in total complications or revisions. Sensitivity analysis did not reveal any differences in the results.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite inherent limitations, this updated meta-analysis suggests that both CR and PS approaches continue to be equivocal in terms of clinical outcomes. Both patients and surgeons can be confident in selecting either approach.</p></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><p>Level I.</p></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><p>the protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO. Registration number: CRD42023391435.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X2300152X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Total knee replacements (TKRs) are successful operations that utilities several operative techniques including cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilising (PS) prostheses. To date, neither approach has proved superior. Techniques and implants are under constant evolution and new trials are published. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the current risks and benefits of these two approaches so that an up-to-date clinical recommendation can be given as to which approach if any is superior.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, EBCSO, and Google Scholar. Risk of bias was assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias criteria. Meta-analysisusing the random effects model was performed by the STATA software and results were displayed on forest plots. Sensitivity analysis was performed for possible causes of heterogeneity.
Results
From 1164 studies, 15 eligible trials were included. Meta-analysis showed that the CR approach had significantly lower Range of Motion and HSS scores. There was no significant difference in KSS, OKS, VAS, or WOMAC scores. Blood loss was significantly less in the CR group. However, there was no significant difference in total complications or revisions. Sensitivity analysis did not reveal any differences in the results.
Conclusion
Despite inherent limitations, this updated meta-analysis suggests that both CR and PS approaches continue to be equivocal in terms of clinical outcomes. Both patients and surgeons can be confident in selecting either approach.
Level of evidence
Level I.
Systematic review registration
the protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO. Registration number: CRD42023391435.
期刊介绍：
Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field.
Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
