Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a better choice than total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 7.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chinese Medical Journal Pub Date : 2025-07-05 Epub Date: 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1097/CM9.0000000000003193
Kuanyu Xia, Lang Min, Wenqing Xie, Guang Yang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Ai Koyanagi, Louis Jacob, Lee Smith, Jae Il Shin, Masoud Rahmati, Wenfeng Xiao, Yusheng Li
{"title":"Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a better choice than total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Kuanyu Xia, Lang Min, Wenqing Xie, Guang Yang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Ai Koyanagi, Louis Jacob, Lee Smith, Jae Il Shin, Masoud Rahmati, Wenfeng Xiao, Yusheng Li","doi":"10.1097/CM9.0000000000003193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) vs . total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical results of UKA and TKA for treating unicompartmental KOA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published up to January 2, 2023. The literature was rigorously screened to include only RCTs comparing UKA and TKA for unicompartmental KOA. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate the mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the Cochrane standards.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen publications involving 683 UKAs and 683 TKAs were analyzed. Except for one study with a follow-up period of 15 years, all outcome measures reported were within 5 years of follow-up. Meta-analysis showed better knee recovery (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.01-1.45; P  <0.001), greater knee function (MD: 1.78; 95% CI: 0.34-3.22; P  = 0.020), less pain (MD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.43-1.06; P  <0.001), and better health status (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 0.81-6.69; P  = 0.010) after UKA than TKA. However, considering the minimal clinically important difference values for these variables, the findings were not clinically relevant. Moreover, UKA patients had fewer complications (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.78; P  <0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD: -0.89; 95% CI: -1.57 to -0.22; P  = 0.009) than did TKA patients. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative range of movement, revision, failure, operation time, and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of clinical efficacy, there was no obvious advantage of UKA over TKA in the surgical treatment of knee OA when considering the minimal clinically important difference. The main advantage of UKA over TKA is that it leads to fewer complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. It is ideal to perform prospective studies with longer follow-up periods to fully evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":10183,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1568-1577"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12233926/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000003193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The choice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) vs . total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the clinical results of UKA and TKA for treating unicompartmental KOA.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published up to January 2, 2023. The literature was rigorously screened to include only RCTs comparing UKA and TKA for unicompartmental KOA. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to calculate the mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the Cochrane standards.

Results: Thirteen publications involving 683 UKAs and 683 TKAs were analyzed. Except for one study with a follow-up period of 15 years, all outcome measures reported were within 5 years of follow-up. Meta-analysis showed better knee recovery (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.01-1.45; P  <0.001), greater knee function (MD: 1.78; 95% CI: 0.34-3.22; P  = 0.020), less pain (MD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.43-1.06; P  <0.001), and better health status (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 0.81-6.69; P  = 0.010) after UKA than TKA. However, considering the minimal clinically important difference values for these variables, the findings were not clinically relevant. Moreover, UKA patients had fewer complications (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.78; P  <0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD: -0.89; 95% CI: -1.57 to -0.22; P  = 0.009) than did TKA patients. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of postoperative range of movement, revision, failure, operation time, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions: In terms of clinical efficacy, there was no obvious advantage of UKA over TKA in the surgical treatment of knee OA when considering the minimal clinically important difference. The main advantage of UKA over TKA is that it leads to fewer complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. It is ideal to perform prospective studies with longer follow-up periods to fully evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the two procedures in the future.

对于单间室骨关节炎,单间室膝关节置换术比全膝关节置换术是更好的选择吗?随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:在膝关节骨性关节炎(KOA)的手术治疗中,选择单间室膝关节置换术(UKA)还是全膝关节置换术(TKA)仍存在争议。本研究旨在对随机对照试验(RCTs)进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较UKA和TKA治疗单间室KOA的临床效果:系统检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆中截至 2023 年 1 月 2 日发表的文章。对文献进行了严格筛选,只纳入了比较 UKA 和 TKA 治疗单腔 KOA 的 RCT。根据 Cochrane 标准进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,计算出平均差(MD)、相对风险(RR)和 95% 置信区间(CI):分析了涉及 683 例 UKAs 和 683 例 TKAs 的 13 篇文献。除一项随访期长达 15 年的研究外,所有报告的结果均为 5 年内的随访结果。Meta 分析表明膝关节恢复更好(MD:1.23;95% CI:1.01-1.45;P 结论:就临床疗效而言,考虑到最小临床重要性差异,UKA 与 TKA 相比,在膝关节 OA 的手术治疗方面没有明显优势。与TKA相比,UKA的主要优势在于并发症更少,住院时间更短。理想的做法是开展随访时间更长的前瞻性研究,以全面评估这两种手术的长期疗效和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Chinese Medical Journal
Chinese Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
4.90%
发文量
19245
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Chinese Medical Journal (CMJ) is published semimonthly in English by the Chinese Medical Association, and is a peer reviewed general medical journal for all doctors, researchers, and health workers regardless of their medical specialty or type of employment. Established in 1887, it is the oldest medical periodical in China and is distributed worldwide. The journal functions as a window into China’s medical sciences and reflects the advances and progress in China’s medical sciences and technology. It serves the objective of international academic exchange. The journal includes Original Articles, Editorial, Review Articles, Medical Progress, Brief Reports, Case Reports, Viewpoint, Clinical Exchange, Letter,and News,etc. CMJ is abstracted or indexed in many databases including Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus/Medline, Science Citation Index (SCI), Current Contents, Cancerlit, Health Plan & Administration, Embase, Social Scisearch, Aidsline, Toxline, Biocommercial Abstracts, Arts and Humanities Search, Nuclear Science Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Cab Abstracts, Occupation Safety & Health, etc. In 2007, the impact factor of the journal by SCI is 0.636, and the total citation is 2315.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信