Migliorini Filippo, Tingart Markus, Niewiera Marc, Rath Björn, Eschweiler Jörg
Department of Orthopaedics, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Department of General Surgery, Eifelklinik St. Brigida, Simmerath, Germany.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019 May;29(4):947-955. doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2358-9. Epub 2018 Dec 7.
In the last couple of years, a significant amount of studies comparing the UKA and TKA for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis have been published. However, there is a lack of recent meta-analysis comparing the two implants. Since the number of performed UKAs is currently increasing and the indications are obsolete, it becomes important to update current evidences and outcomes. With these premises, a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing UKA versus TKA was conducted.
In October 2018, the following databases were accessed: Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar. According to the Oxford Center of Evidence-based Medicine, level of evidence articles I to III were included. Only studies reporting quantitative data concerning the outcomes of interest were included. For the statistical analysis and the methodological quality assessment, we referred to the Review Manager Software 5.3. Dichotomous data were analyzed through the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method with the odd ratio effect measure. For continuous data, the inverse variance statistical method was used with the mean difference effect measure. A confidence interval of 95% was considered for analysis. To evaluate study heterogeneity, both Chi-square and Higgins tests were performed. Values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
The overall methodological quality assessment was moderate. The risk of publication's bias was moderate. We enrolled in this study a total of 13,789 patients. The mean follow-up was 42.69 months. The UKA evidenced increased risk of revision's surgeries (OR 2.16, P > 0.0001). All the other scores of interest were in favor of the UKA: Oxford Knee Score, KSS Clinical, WOMAC overall and related subscales. The UKA also reported better functional outcomes: KSS Function, longer walking distance, improvement of the joint flexion and ROM. Moreover, in the UKA group have been reported a shorter length of stay, reduced estimated total blood loss and shorter surgical duration.
The main findings of this meta-analysis are that UKA reported a reduced survivorship but better clinical and functional performances compared to TKA. Furthermore, shorter surgical duration, lower total estimated blood loss and quicker hospitalization length were observed in the UKA cohort.
在过去几年中,已经发表了大量比较单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)和全膝关节置换术(TKA)治疗单髁膝关节骨关节炎的研究。然而,缺乏近期比较这两种植入物的荟萃分析。由于目前进行的UKA数量在增加且适应症过时,更新当前的证据和结果变得很重要。基于这些前提,我们进行了一项比较UKA与TKA的临床试验的荟萃分析。
2018年10月,我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane系统评价、Scopus、PubMed和谷歌学术。根据牛津循证医学中心的标准,纳入了I至III级证据的文章。仅纳入报告了有关感兴趣结局的定量数据的研究。对于统计分析和方法学质量评估,我们参考了Review Manager软件5.3。二分数据通过Mantel-Haenszel统计方法进行分析,采用比值比效应量。对于连续数据,使用逆方差统计方法,采用均数差效应量。分析时考虑95%的置信区间。为了评估研究的异质性,进行了卡方检验和Higgins检验。P < 0.05的值被认为具有统计学意义。
总体方法学质量评估为中等。发表偏倚的风险为中等。我们在本研究中总共纳入了13789例患者。平均随访时间为42.69个月。UKA显示翻修手术风险增加(比值比2.16,P > 0.0001)。所有其他感兴趣的评分均有利于UKA:牛津膝关节评分、KSS临床评分、WOMAC总体评分及相关子量表。UKA还报告了更好的功能结局:KSS功能评分、更长的行走距离、关节屈曲和活动范围的改善。此外,UKA组的住院时间更短、估计总失血量减少且手术时间更短。
这项荟萃分析的主要发现是,与TKA相比,UKA的生存率较低,但临床和功能表现更好。此外,在UKA队列中观察到手术时间更短、估计总失血量更低且住院时间更短。