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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yoon, Jung-Ro, Cheong, Ji-Young, Im, Jung-Taek, Park, Phil-Sun, Park, Jae-Ok, Shin, Young-Soo
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