Cargando…
Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis
There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30908538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214279 |
_version_ | 1783406265021497344 |
---|---|
author | Yoon, Jung-Ro Cheong, Ji-Young Im, Jung-Taek Park, Phil-Sun Park, Jae-Ok Shin, Young-Soo |
author_facet | Yoon, Jung-Ro Cheong, Ji-Young Im, Jung-Taek Park, Phil-Sun Park, Jae-Ok Shin, Young-Soo |
author_sort | Yoon, Jung-Ro |
collection | PubMed |
description | There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5–10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24–1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5–10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56–1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5–10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6433230 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64332302019-04-08 Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis Yoon, Jung-Ro Cheong, Ji-Young Im, Jung-Taek Park, Phil-Sun Park, Jae-Ok Shin, Young-Soo PLoS One Research Article There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5–10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24–1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5–10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56–1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5–10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship. Public Library of Science 2019-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6433230/ /pubmed/30908538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214279 Text en © 2019 Yoon et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yoon, Jung-Ro Cheong, Ji-Young Im, Jung-Taek Park, Phil-Sun Park, Jae-Ok Shin, Young-Soo Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis |
title | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis |
title_full | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis |
title_short | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis |
title_sort | rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30908538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214279 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yoonjungro rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT cheongjiyoung rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT imjungtaek rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT parkphilsun rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT parkjaeok rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT shinyoungsoo rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis |