No Superiority of Total Knee Arthroplasty Alignment Philosophies: A Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Mechanical, Anatomical, Kinematic, Restricted Kinematic, and Functional Alignment Among Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.4 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2025-08-15 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.25.00101
Charles Gusho, Wayne Hoskins, Elie Ghanem
{"title":"No Superiority of Total Knee Arthroplasty Alignment Philosophies: A Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Mechanical, Anatomical, Kinematic, Restricted Kinematic, and Functional Alignment Among Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Charles Gusho, Wayne Hoskins, Elie Ghanem","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.25.00101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) philosophies exist, with different component and limb alignment targets, there is no consensus on which is superior. This study compared outcomes among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TKAs performed to achieve mechanical (MA), anatomical (AA), kinematic (KA), restricted KA (rKA), and functional alignment (FA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scopus, Ovid/MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were queried in April 2025 (PROSPERO: CRD420251017962). A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs assessed complications, revisions, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using P-scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 3,605 studies, 22 RCTs totaling 1,411 patients (1,428 primary TKAs) with median (interquartile range) age of 68.2 years (6.8) and follow-up of 29.1 months (48) were included for meta-analysis. The distribution of alignment philosophies was MA (n = 708, 49.6%), AA (n = 101, 7.1%), KA (n = 394, 27.6%), rKA (n = 160, 11.2%), or FA (n = 65, 4.6%). Compared to MA, the mean Knee Society Score (KSS) knee score improvements from baseline were statistically lower (worse) with AA (mean difference [MD] -0.503; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.96 to -0.04; p = 0.0320) and KA (MD -0.623; 95% CI -1.07 to -0.18; p = 0.006), and mean KSS combined changes were also statistically lower (worse) with KA (MD -0.314; 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; p = 0.009) versus MA. However, each statistically significant change had high heterogeneity and failed to reach the minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant changes in the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Indices, KSS function, Oxford Knee, or Forgotten Joint scores among each alignment philosophy. In addition, postoperative knee flexion, complications, and reoperation rates with or without implant removal were similar among all techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found no clinically meaningful difference in PROs nor complication rates among TKA alignment philosophies, supporting comparable short-term to mid-term outcomes. However, longer follow-up is required to accurately assess implant failure and revision rates.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"13 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.25.00101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) philosophies exist, with different component and limb alignment targets, there is no consensus on which is superior. This study compared outcomes among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TKAs performed to achieve mechanical (MA), anatomical (AA), kinematic (KA), restricted KA (rKA), and functional alignment (FA).

Methods: Scopus, Ovid/MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were queried in April 2025 (PROSPERO: CRD420251017962). A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs assessed complications, revisions, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using P-scores.

Results: Among 3,605 studies, 22 RCTs totaling 1,411 patients (1,428 primary TKAs) with median (interquartile range) age of 68.2 years (6.8) and follow-up of 29.1 months (48) were included for meta-analysis. The distribution of alignment philosophies was MA (n = 708, 49.6%), AA (n = 101, 7.1%), KA (n = 394, 27.6%), rKA (n = 160, 11.2%), or FA (n = 65, 4.6%). Compared to MA, the mean Knee Society Score (KSS) knee score improvements from baseline were statistically lower (worse) with AA (mean difference [MD] -0.503; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.96 to -0.04; p = 0.0320) and KA (MD -0.623; 95% CI -1.07 to -0.18; p = 0.006), and mean KSS combined changes were also statistically lower (worse) with KA (MD -0.314; 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; p = 0.009) versus MA. However, each statistically significant change had high heterogeneity and failed to reach the minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant changes in the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Indices, KSS function, Oxford Knee, or Forgotten Joint scores among each alignment philosophy. In addition, postoperative knee flexion, complications, and reoperation rates with or without implant removal were similar among all techniques.

Conclusion: This study found no clinically meaningful difference in PROs nor complication rates among TKA alignment philosophies, supporting comparable short-term to mid-term outcomes. However, longer follow-up is required to accurately assess implant failure and revision rates.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

全膝关节置换术对齐理念没有优势:随机对照试验中机械、解剖、运动、受限运动和功能对齐的网络荟萃分析。
背景:尽管存在各种不同的全膝关节置换术(TKA)理念,具有不同的组成部分和肢体对齐目标,但对于哪一种更好并没有共识。本研究比较了采用tka实现机械(MA)、解剖(AA)、运动学(KA)、限制性KA (rKA)和功能对齐(FA)的随机对照试验(rct)的结果。方法:于2025年4月查询Scopus、Ovid/MEDLINE、PubMed、Cochrane系统评价数据库和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(PROSPERO: CRD420251017962)。对符合条件的前瞻性随机对照试验进行频率模型网络荟萃分析,使用p评分评估并发症、修订和患者报告的结果(PROs)。结果:在3605项研究中,纳入22项随机对照试验,共1411例患者(1428例原发性tka),中位年龄(四分位间距)为68.2岁(6.8岁),随访时间为29.1个月(48个)。排列方式分布为MA (n = 708, 49.6%)、AA (n = 101, 7.1%)、KA (n = 394, 27.6%)、rKA (n = 160, 11.2%)、FA (n = 65, 4.6%)。与MA相比,平均膝关节社会评分(KSS)膝关节评分较基线改善在统计学上较低(较差),AA组(平均差[MD] -0.503;95%置信区间[CI] -0.96 ~ -0.04;p = 0.0320)和KA (MD -0.623;95% CI -1.07 ~ -0.18;p = 0.006),平均KSS联合变化与KA也有统计学差异(MD -0.314;95% CI -0.55 ~ -0.08;p = 0.009)。然而,每一个具有统计学意义的变化都有很高的异质性,未能达到最小的临床重要差异。在每种对齐方式中,西安大略和麦克马斯特大学的平均骨关节炎指数、KSS功能、牛津膝关节或遗忘关节评分没有显著变化。此外,在所有技术中,术后膝关节屈曲、并发症以及是否取出植入物的再手术率相似。结论:本研究发现,不同的TKA对齐方式在PROs和并发症发生率方面没有临床意义的差异,支持可比较的短期和中期结果。然而,需要更长的随访时间来准确评估种植体失败率和翻修率。证据水平:治疗性i级。参见《作者说明》获得证据水平的完整描述。
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
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
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