Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.
There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and c...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214279 |
| _version_ | 1818588954391216128 |
|---|---|
| author | Jung-Ro Yoon Ji-Young Cheong Jung-Taek Im Phil-Sun Park Jae-Ok Park Young-Soo Shin |
| author_facet | Jung-Ro Yoon Ji-Young Cheong Jung-Taek Im Phil-Sun Park Jae-Ok Park Young-Soo Shin |
| author_sort | Jung-Ro Yoon |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5-10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5-10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T09:32:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-07511d26fdf341029586dcd7443a5f57 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T09:32:57Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-07511d26fdf341029586dcd7443a5f572022-12-21T22:36:28ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01143e021427910.1371/journal.pone.0214279Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.Jung-Ro YoonJi-Young CheongJung-Taek ImPhil-Sun ParkJae-Ok ParkYoung-Soo ShinThere is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5-10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5-10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214279 |
| spellingShingle | Jung-Ro Yoon Ji-Young Cheong Jung-Taek Im Phil-Sun Park Jae-Ok Park Young-Soo Shin Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE |
| title | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. |
| title_full | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. |
| title_fullStr | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. |
| title_short | Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. |
| title_sort | rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty a meta analysis |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214279 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jungroyoon rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT jiyoungcheong rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT jungtaekim rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT philsunpark rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT jaeokpark rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis AT youngsooshin rotatinghingekneeversusconstrainedcondylarkneeinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyametaanalysis |