Goyal Tarun, Tripathy Sujit K
Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India.
Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India.
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Oct;31(10):2173-80. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.047. Epub 2016 Apr 4.
Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been recently introduced in knee arthroplasty. There is no strong evidence from meta-analysis on comparison of functional outcomes between PSI and conventional instrumentation.
Literature search of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for published randomized controlled trials was undertaken. Search was done using a predesigned search strategy. Eligible studies were critically appraised for the methodological quality using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Functional scores used for meta-analysis were Knee Society Knee Score, Knee Society Function Scores, Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, and Visual Analogue Scale score for pain (0-10 scale).
Five randomized controlled trials involving 379 total knee arthroplasties were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. No significant improvement in short-term functional outcomes was seen after using PSI compared to the control group in terms of Knee Society Knee Score (weighted mean difference 0.65, 95% CI -4.41 to 5.70, P = .80) and Knee Society Function scores (weighted mean difference 0.01, 95% CI -3.26 to 3.28, P = .99), Oxford Knee Score (weighted mean difference 3.36, 95% CI -3.48 to 10.00, P = .34), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (weighted mean difference -7.47, 95% CI -23.94 to 8.99, P = .37), and Visual Analogue Scale score for pain (weighted mean difference -0.10, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.21, P = .53).
Current literature is insufficient to address whether there is a benefit of PSI in total knee arthroplasty in terms of improvement in functional outcomes.
患者特异性器械(PSI)最近已被引入膝关节置换术。荟萃分析中没有强有力的证据来比较PSI与传统器械在功能结局方面的差异。
对电子数据库PubMed、MEDLINE和Cochrane图书馆进行文献检索,以查找已发表的随机对照试验。检索使用预先设计的检索策略。使用Cochrane协作组织的工具对符合条件的研究进行方法学质量的严格评估。用于荟萃分析的功能评分包括膝关节协会膝关节评分、膝关节协会功能评分、牛津膝关节评分、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学关节炎指数以及疼痛视觉模拟量表评分(0-10分)。
五项涉及379例全膝关节置换术的随机对照试验符合纳入荟萃分析的条件。与对照组相比,使用PSI后在短期功能结局方面未观察到显著改善,在膝关节协会膝关节评分(加权平均差0.65,95%可信区间-4.41至5.70,P = 0.80)、膝关节协会功能评分(加权平均差0.01,95%可信区间-3.26至3.28,P = 0.99)、牛津膝关节评分(加权平均差3.36,95%可信区间-3.48至10.00,P = 0.34)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学关节炎指数(加权平均差-7.47,95%可信区间-23.94至8.99,P = 0.37)以及疼痛视觉模拟量表评分(加权平均差-0.10,95%可信区间-0.41至0.21,P = 0.53)方面均未显示出显著差异。
目前的文献不足以说明在全膝关节置换术中使用PSI在改善功能结局方面是否有益。