Systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcomes and innovations in Total Knee Arthroplasty: KINEMATIC, PERSONALIZED KNEE vs. CONVENTIONAL.

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-08-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.122318

Zaki Alhifzi

{"title":"Systematic review and meta-analysis of long term outcomes and innovations in Total Knee Arthroplasty: KINEMATIC, PERSONALIZED KNEE vs. CONVENTIONAL.","authors":"Zaki Alhifzi","doi":"10.52965/001c.122318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Kinematic alignment is an emerging approach for total knee arthroplasty, with the aim to restore patient's individual pre-arthritic joint kinematics. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the kinematic alignment with the conventional mechanical alignment for total knee arthroplasty.Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus on June 2, 2024. We screened the retrieved studies for eligibility. Then extracted the data from the included studies, and then pooled the data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using Review Manager Software (ver. 3.5).Results: There was no significant difference between KA and MA in the different reported scores: combined KSS score at 6 months (P = 0.23) and 1 years (P = 0.60), KSS Patient satisfaction (P = 0.33), KSS function score (P = 0.07), Oxford score at 6 months (P = 0.45) and 2 years (P = 0.41), KOOS score (P = 0.26). Moreover, there was statistically significant difference in range of motion for flexion and extension at 1 and 2 years, incision length, the length of hospital stay, or the duration of surgery.Conclusion: Although kinematic alignment showed slightly better clinical outcomes than mechanical alignment, the difference between the two techniques is not statistically significant.","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"16 ","pages":"122318"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11364552/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.122318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Kinematic alignment is an emerging approach for total knee arthroplasty, with the aim to restore patient's individual pre-arthritic joint kinematics. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the kinematic alignment with the conventional mechanical alignment for total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus on June 2, 2024. We screened the retrieved studies for eligibility. Then extracted the data from the included studies, and then pooled the data as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval using Review Manager Software (ver. 3.5).

Results: There was no significant difference between KA and MA in the different reported scores: combined KSS score at 6 months (P = 0.23) and 1 years (P = 0.60), KSS Patient satisfaction (P = 0.33), KSS function score (P = 0.07), Oxford score at 6 months (P = 0.45) and 2 years (P = 0.41), KOOS score (P = 0.26). Moreover, there was statistically significant difference in range of motion for flexion and extension at 1 and 2 years, incision length, the length of hospital stay, or the duration of surgery.

Conclusion: Although kinematic alignment showed slightly better clinical outcomes than mechanical alignment, the difference between the two techniques is not statistically significant.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对全膝关节置换术的长期疗效和创新进行系统回顾和荟萃分析：个性化膝关节与传统膝关节对比。

背景：运动学对位是一种新兴的全膝关节置换术方法，旨在恢复患者关节炎前的关节运动学。在这篇系统综述和荟萃分析中，我们比较了全膝关节置换术中的运动学对位与传统机械对位：我们于 2024 年 6 月 2 日检索了 PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 和 Scopus。我们对检索到的研究进行了资格筛选。然后从纳入的研究中提取数据，再用Review Manager软件（3.5版）将数据汇总为平均差（MD）或带95%置信区间的几率比（OR）：KA和MA在以下不同报告评分方面无明显差异：6个月时的KSS综合评分（P = 0.23）和1年时（P = 0.60）、KSS患者满意度（P = 0.33）、KSS功能评分（P = 0.07）、6个月时的牛津评分（P = 0.45）和2年时（P = 0.41）、KOOS评分（P = 0.26）。此外，在1年和2年的屈伸活动范围、切口长度、住院时间或手术持续时间方面，差异均无统计学意义：结论：虽然运动对位的临床效果略优于机械对位，但两种技术之间的差异在统计学上并不显著。

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

Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

4.80%

发文量

122

审稿时长

10 weeks

期刊介绍： Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.