Mohebbi Sadra, Khani Yashar, Sadooghi Rad Elias, Hefzosseheh Mohammadhossein, Aliakbari Mahya, Rezagholi Fateme, Mehrvar Amir
School of Medicine Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran.
Student Research Committee, School of Medicine Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran.
J Exp Orthop. 2025 Jun 5;12(2):e70290. doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70290. eCollection 2025 Apr.
This systematic review compares single-peg and twin-peg unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) implant designs with respect to radiographic findings, clinical outcomes and implant longevity.
A search strategy was applied to four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria focused on studies of the twin-peg and single-peg designs in the UKA. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Study characteristics, patient demographics, clinical outcomes, revision rate and radiographic differences were extracted. We utilized the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention to assess the RoB in included studies.
Seven studies were included in the final review. Results varied in the case of radiographic scores, clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Some studies demonstrated advantages for twin-peg designs in component positioning, but others identified no significant differences. PROMs indicated improvements with both implants, but there was no evidence to clearly prefer one design over the other. Twin-peg designs showed slightly lower revision rates in some studies, but evidence remains inconclusive regarding overall superiority. Revision causes included pain, osteoarthritis (OA), instability, infection and aseptic loosening.
The study found that twin-peg designs may have superior outcomes, but overall results did not support either design, conclusively.
Level III, systematic review.
本系统评价比较了单栓和双栓单髁膝关节置换术（UKA）植入物设计在影像学表现、临床结果和植入物使用寿命方面的差异。
对四个数据库应用检索策略，包括PubMed、Scopus、Embase和科学网。纳入标准聚焦于UKA中双栓和单栓设计的研究。两名评价者独立进行筛选、数据提取和质量评估。提取研究特征、患者人口统计学信息、临床结果、翻修率和影像学差异。我们使用偏倚风险（RoB）2工具和非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险来评估纳入研究中的偏倚风险。
最终评价纳入了七项研究。影像学评分、临床结果和患者报告结局指标（PROMs）的结果各不相同。一些研究表明双栓设计在组件定位方面具有优势，但其他研究未发现显著差异。PROMs显示两种植入物均有改善，但没有证据表明明显更倾向于一种设计。在一些研究中，双栓设计的翻修率略低，但关于总体优越性的证据仍不确凿。翻修原因包括疼痛、骨关节炎（OA）、不稳定、感染和无菌性松动。
该研究发现双栓设计可能有更好的结果，但总体结果并未确凿地支持任何一种设计。
III级，系统评价。
