Inferior outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Authors
- Lee, Jin Kyu; Kim, Hyun Jung; Park, Jae Ok; Yang, Jae-Hyuk
- Issue Date
- 11월-2018
- Publisher
- SPRINGER
- Keywords
- Revision; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Total knee arthroplasty; Systematic review; Meta-analysis
- Citation
- KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, v.26, no.11, pp.3403 - 3418
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
- Volume
- 26
- Number
- 11
- Start Page
- 3403
- End Page
- 3418
- URI
- https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/72010
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00167-018-4909-3
- ISSN
- 0942-2056
- Abstract
- PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with primary TKA through a review of previously published studies. The hypothesis was that the revised UKA group would need additional operative procedures, including the use of stems and augments, resulting in poorer clinical outcomes than those of the primary TKA group.MethodsA literature search of online register databases was performed to identify clinical trials that compared revised UKA to TKA with primary TKA. An electronic literature search was performed using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. No language or date restrictions were applied.ResultsA total of 2034 articles were identified from a keyword search, of which 11 studies were determined as eligible. They were all retrospective comparative studies. The revised UKA to TKA group had longer operation times resulting from additional procedures such as bone grafting and use of stems and augments, higher reoperation rates, and worse postoperative clinical outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford Knee Score than the primary TKA group, with the differences being statistically significant.ConclusionUKA should not be considered an alternative procedure to TKA.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - ETC > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.