Department of Orthopaedics, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Pauwelsstraße, 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Sep;140(9):1245-1253. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03478-4. Epub 2020 May 14.
To achieve the most desirable post-operative results, operation techniques and procedures for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are highly standardized. However, debates persist whether patients having undergone a gap balancing technique (GB) perform better than those having undergone measured resection (MR) technique. Therefore, a meta-analysis study was conducted to investigate advantages of GB compared to the MR. The focus of the present study was on clinical and functional scores, radiological measurements and further complications.
The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. In November 2019, literature search was performed. All clinical studies comparing measured resection technique versus gap balancing technique for primary total knee arthroplasty were considered for inclusion. Only articles reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality assessment and statistical analyses were performed through the Review Manager Software version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen).
Data from 25 clinical trials (2971 procedures) were collected. Patient baseline demonstrated a good comparability. No difference among the two cohorts was found in terms of SF-12 Mental and Physical, ROM, KSS, KSS Function, OKS, WOMAC. No difference was found in the alignment of mechanical axis and femoral rotation. During the knee motion, no difference was found between the medial and lateral gaps among the two techniques. The GB showed a significant elevated joint line (P < 0.0001), along with a longer duration of the operating time (P = 0.001). No differences were found in terms of revision surgery, aseptic loosening or prosthetic infections.
GB and MR achieve similar outcomes for TKA. In the GB group, a proximalisation of the joint line and extended operating time was detected. Regarding the additional outcomes of interest, the present analysis showed comparability between both groups, MR and GB.
为了达到最理想的术后效果,全膝关节置换术(TKA)的手术技术和程序高度标准化。然而,关于接受间隙平衡技术(GB)的患者是否比接受测量切除(MR)技术的患者表现更好,仍存在争议。因此,进行了一项荟萃分析研究,以调查 GB 与 MR 相比的优势。本研究的重点是临床和功能评分、影像学测量和进一步的并发症。
本荟萃分析按照 PRISMA 清单进行。2019 年 11 月进行文献检索。所有比较原发性全膝关节置换术测量切除技术与间隙平衡技术的临床研究均被认为符合纳入标准。只有报告符合纳入标准的定量数据的文章才有资格入选。方法学质量评估和统计分析通过 Review Manager 软件版本 5.3(Cochrane 协作组织,哥本哈根)进行。
共收集了 25 项临床试验(2971 例手术)的数据。患者基线表现出良好的可比性。两组在 SF-12 心理和生理、ROM、KSS、KSS 功能、OKS、WOMAC 方面无差异。机械轴和股骨旋转的对准无差异。在膝关节运动过程中,两种技术之间的内侧和外侧间隙无差异。GB 组关节线显著升高(P<0.0001),手术时间延长(P=0.001)。两组在翻修手术、无菌性松动或假体感染方面无差异。
GB 和 MR 对 TKA 取得相似的结果。在 GB 组,关节线近端化和手术时间延长。关于其他感兴趣的结果,本分析显示两组(MR 和 GB)之间具有可比性。