We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs High Tibial Osteotomy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Arthroplasty 2018 March
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have compared unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) suggesting that both procedures had good clinical outcomes. However, which treatment is more beneficial for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is still a controversy. The purpose of our study is to obtain postoperative outcomes of revision rate, complications, function results, range of motion (ROM), and pain between the 2 procedures.
METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and study protocol was published online at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42016049316. We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to May 2017. Articles that directly compared postoperative outcomes of UKA to HTO were included.
RESULTS: A total of 10 comparative studies were included in our meta-analysis. UKA patients showed less revision rate, less complications, and less postoperative pain than HTO patients; however, HTO patients obtained more ROM. No significant difference was observed between the group accruing to the knee function scores and excellent/good surgical results.
CONCLUSION: UKA offers a safe and efficient alternative to osteoarthritis reduced postoperative pain, less postoperative complication, and revision. The 2 surgical techniques showed satisfactory function results for the patients; however, the HTO group achieved superior ROM compared to the UKA group. HTO may be suitable for patients with high activity requirements. Treatment options should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their age, body mass index, grade of osteoarthritis, and patients' activity levels.
METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and study protocol was published online at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42016049316. We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to May 2017. Articles that directly compared postoperative outcomes of UKA to HTO were included.
RESULTS: A total of 10 comparative studies were included in our meta-analysis. UKA patients showed less revision rate, less complications, and less postoperative pain than HTO patients; however, HTO patients obtained more ROM. No significant difference was observed between the group accruing to the knee function scores and excellent/good surgical results.
CONCLUSION: UKA offers a safe and efficient alternative to osteoarthritis reduced postoperative pain, less postoperative complication, and revision. The 2 surgical techniques showed satisfactory function results for the patients; however, the HTO group achieved superior ROM compared to the UKA group. HTO may be suitable for patients with high activity requirements. Treatment options should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their age, body mass index, grade of osteoarthritis, and patients' activity levels.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app