使用真正无限制运动学对位的全膝关节置换术术前和术后放射学角度的报告稀少且不一致:综述和二次荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Mo Saffarini, Robin Canetti, Julien Henry, Kinga Michalewska, Jacobus H Müller, Michael T Hirschmann
{"title":"使用真正无限制运动学对位的全膝关节置换术术前和术后放射学角度的报告稀少且不一致:综述和二次荟萃分析。","authors":"Mo Saffarini, Robin Canetti, Julien Henry, Kinga Michalewska, Jacobus H Müller, Michael T Hirschmann","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on pre- and post-operative radiographic angles (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and hip-knee-ankle [HKA] angle) of unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, that reported on TKA outcomes using unrestricted kinematic alignment. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses was independently assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). The effect size with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for radiographic angles was extracted from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The characteristics of clinical studies included in systematic reviews were listed and tabulated. Pre- and post-operative MPTA, LDFA and HKA angles were summarised using meta-analytic random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen records were eligible for data extraction. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses included 44 clinical studies, of which 31 were on unrestricted kinematic alignment and 13 were on restricted versions of kinematic alignment. None of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses fulfiled all seven critical AMSTAR-2 domains. Few comparative studies reported both pre- and post-operative angles (LDFA, n = 3; MPTA, n = 4; and HKA angle, n = 10). Mean pre- and post-operative LDFAs were 88.0° (range, 83-94°) and 88.0° (range, 80-96°) for the kinematic alignment group, and 88.2° (range, 83-95°) and 90.2° (range, 84-97°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative MPTAs were 86.0° (range, 78-93°) and 87.1° (range, 78-94°) for the kinematic alignment group and 86.4° (range, 77-94°) and 89.6° (range, 84-95°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative HKA angles were -3.3° (range, -24° to 24°) and -0.3° (range, -10° to 8°) for the kinematic alignment group and -6.9° (range, -25° to 7°) and -0.9° (range, -8° to 7°) for the mechanical alignment group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses that report outcomes of TKA using kinematic alignment do not distinguish between the different versions of kinematic alignment. The clinical studies included in systematic reviews are limited and inconsistent in their reporting of radiographic angles. Different alignment strategies are often grouped under the umbrella term of kinematic alignment, which contributes to conflicting reports, confusion and unresolved questions regarding the efficacy of true unrestricted kinematic alignment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sparse and inconsistent reporting of pre- and post-operative radiographic angles of total knee arthroplasty using true unrestricted kinematic alignment: An umbrella review and secondary meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mo Saffarini, Robin Canetti, Julien Henry, Kinga Michalewska, Jacobus H Müller, Michael T Hirschmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on pre- and post-operative radiographic angles (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and hip-knee-ankle [HKA] angle) of unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, that reported on TKA outcomes using unrestricted kinematic alignment. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses was independently assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). The effect size with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for radiographic angles was extracted from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The characteristics of clinical studies included in systematic reviews were listed and tabulated. Pre- and post-operative MPTA, LDFA and HKA angles were summarised using meta-analytic random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen records were eligible for data extraction. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses included 44 clinical studies, of which 31 were on unrestricted kinematic alignment and 13 were on restricted versions of kinematic alignment. None of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses fulfiled all seven critical AMSTAR-2 domains. Few comparative studies reported both pre- and post-operative angles (LDFA, n = 3; MPTA, n = 4; and HKA angle, n = 10). Mean pre- and post-operative LDFAs were 88.0° (range, 83-94°) and 88.0° (range, 80-96°) for the kinematic alignment group, and 88.2° (range, 83-95°) and 90.2° (range, 84-97°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative MPTAs were 86.0° (range, 78-93°) and 87.1° (range, 78-94°) for the kinematic alignment group and 86.4° (range, 77-94°) and 89.6° (range, 84-95°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative HKA angles were -3.3° (range, -24° to 24°) and -0.3° (range, -10° to 8°) for the kinematic alignment group and -6.9° (range, -25° to 7°) and -0.9° (range, -8° to 7°) for the mechanical alignment group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses that report outcomes of TKA using kinematic alignment do not distinguish between the different versions of kinematic alignment. The clinical studies included in systematic reviews are limited and inconsistent in their reporting of radiographic angles. Different alignment strategies are often grouped under the umbrella term of kinematic alignment, which contributes to conflicting reports, confusion and unresolved questions regarding the efficacy of true unrestricted kinematic alignment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12494\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12494","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对全膝关节置换术(TKA)中无限制运动学对位与机械对位的术前和术后影像学角度(股骨外侧远端角度[LDFA]、胫骨内侧近端角度[MPTA]和髋-膝-踝角度[HKA])的系统综述和荟萃分析结果进行识别、综合和批判性评估:两位作者检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和Epistemonikos,寻找报道了使用非限制性运动学对位的TKA结果的系统综述,包括或不包括荟萃分析。纳入的系统综述和荟萃分析的方法学质量由评估系统综述的评估工具(AMSTAR-2)进行独立评估。从系统综述和荟萃分析中提取了放射学角度的效应大小及其 95% 置信区间 (CI)。系统综述中包含的临床研究的特征已列出并制成表格。使用元分析随机效应模型总结了术前和术后 MPTA、LDFA 和 HKA 角度:19条记录符合数据提取条件。系统综述和荟萃分析包括44项临床研究,其中31项是关于非限制性运动对线的研究,13项是关于限制性运动对线的研究。所纳入的系统综述或荟萃分析没有一项符合 AMSTAR-2 的所有七个关键领域。很少有比较研究同时报告了术前和术后角度(LDFA,n = 3;MPTA,n = 4;HKA 角度,n = 10)。运动对齐组的术前和术后 LDFA 平均值分别为 88.0°(范围 83-94°)和 88.0°(范围 80-96°),机械对齐组的术前和术后 LDFA 平均值分别为 88.2°(范围 83-95°)和 90.2°(范围 84-97°)。运动对齐组的术前和术后平均 MPTA 分别为 86.0°(范围为 78-93°)和 87.1°(范围为 78-94°),机械对齐组分别为 86.4°(范围为 77-94°)和 89.6°(范围为 84-95°)。运动学对位组的术前和术后HKA角度平均值分别为-3.3°(范围为-24°至24°)和-0.3°(范围为-10°至8°),机械对位组的术前和术后HKA角度平均值分别为-6.9°(范围为-25°至7°)和-0.9°(范围为-8°至7°):结论:大多数系统综述和荟萃分析报告了使用运动学对位的 TKA 的结果,但没有区分不同版本的运动学对位。系统综述中包含的临床研究非常有限,而且对放射学角度的报告也不一致。不同的对位策略经常被归类到运动学对位的总称下,这就造成了报告的冲突、混淆以及有关真正无限制运动学对位疗效的未决问题:证据等级:IV 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sparse and inconsistent reporting of pre- and post-operative radiographic angles of total knee arthroplasty using true unrestricted kinematic alignment: An umbrella review and secondary meta-analysis.

Purpose: To identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on pre- and post-operative radiographic angles (lateral distal femoral angle [LDFA], medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and hip-knee-ankle [HKA] angle) of unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods: Two authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, that reported on TKA outcomes using unrestricted kinematic alignment. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses was independently assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). The effect size with its 95% confidence interval (CI) for radiographic angles was extracted from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The characteristics of clinical studies included in systematic reviews were listed and tabulated. Pre- and post-operative MPTA, LDFA and HKA angles were summarised using meta-analytic random-effects models.

Results: Nineteen records were eligible for data extraction. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses included 44 clinical studies, of which 31 were on unrestricted kinematic alignment and 13 were on restricted versions of kinematic alignment. None of the included systematic reviews or meta-analyses fulfiled all seven critical AMSTAR-2 domains. Few comparative studies reported both pre- and post-operative angles (LDFA, n = 3; MPTA, n = 4; and HKA angle, n = 10). Mean pre- and post-operative LDFAs were 88.0° (range, 83-94°) and 88.0° (range, 80-96°) for the kinematic alignment group, and 88.2° (range, 83-95°) and 90.2° (range, 84-97°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative MPTAs were 86.0° (range, 78-93°) and 87.1° (range, 78-94°) for the kinematic alignment group and 86.4° (range, 77-94°) and 89.6° (range, 84-95°) for the mechanical alignment group. Mean pre- and post-operative HKA angles were -3.3° (range, -24° to 24°) and -0.3° (range, -10° to 8°) for the kinematic alignment group and -6.9° (range, -25° to 7°) and -0.9° (range, -8° to 7°) for the mechanical alignment group.

Conclusion: Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses that report outcomes of TKA using kinematic alignment do not distinguish between the different versions of kinematic alignment. The clinical studies included in systematic reviews are limited and inconsistent in their reporting of radiographic angles. Different alignment strategies are often grouped under the umbrella term of kinematic alignment, which contributes to conflicting reports, confusion and unresolved questions regarding the efficacy of true unrestricted kinematic alignment.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信