Patellar resurfacing versus retention in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty.

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the influence of patellar resurfacing following cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the incidence of anterior knee pain, knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and reoperation rates.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to search criteria. Search terms used included: arthroplasty, replacement, knee (Mesh), TKA, prosthesis, patella, patellar resurfacing, and patellar retaining. RCTs that compared patellar resurfacing versus unresurfaced in primary TKA were included for further analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network assessment tool for quality and minimization of bias. Data were synthesized and meta-analysis performed.

RESULTS

There were 4,135 TKAs (2,068 resurfaced and 2,027 unresurfaced) identified in 35 separate cohorts from 33 peer-reviewed studies. Anterior knee pain rates were significantly higher in unresurfaced knees overall (odds ratio (OR) 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.83; p = 0.006) but more specifically associated with CR implants (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.52; p = 0.030). There was a significantly better Knee Society function score (mean difference (MD) -1.98; 95% CI -1.1 to -2.84; p < 0.001) and Oxford Knee Score (MD -2.24; 95% CI -0.07 to -4.41; p = 0.040) for PS implants when patellar resurfacing was performed, but these differences did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference for these scores. There were no significant differences in complication rates or infection rates according to implant design. There was an overall significantly higher reoperation rate for unresurfaced TKA (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.06); p = 0.030) but there was no difference between PS or CR TKA.

CONCLUSION

Patellar resurfacing, when performed with CR implants, resulted in lower rates of anterior knee pain and, when used with a PS implant, yielded better knee-specific functional outcomes. Patellar resurfacing was associated with a lower risk of reoperation overall, but implant type did not influence this.