Abstract

BackgroundMeasured resection and gap balancing are two distinct methods for proper femoral component alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Decision-making between the two techniques is controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare measured resection and gap balancing with regard to the radiological and clinical benefits, and to examine whether this change the conclusions from previous trails.MethodsA systematic literature search of the medical literature from January 1990 to February 2015 was performed. We selected six randomized controlled trials and five prospective cohort studies comparing gap balancing and measured resection in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Data from included studies were pooled with use of fixed-effects and random-effects models with standard mean differences and risk ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with calculation of the I2 statistic.ResultsA total of 857 knees from 11 trials were included. Four hundred and forty-one knees were treated with gap balancing and 416 were treated with measured resection. In contrast to previous studies, we found that gap balancing demonstrated better patient-reported outcomes with regard to Knee Society score for pain (WMD 2.75, p = 0.004) and Knee Society score for function (WMD 5.47, p < 0.0001) at two-year follow-up. Gap balancing showed more precise limb alignment in terms of post-operative value of mechanical axis (WMD 0.40°, p = 0.01) and risk of mechanical alignment outliers (RR 0.350, p < 0.0001). However, gap balancing was associated with more joint line elevation (WMD 1.27 mm, p < 0.0001) and longer operative time (WMD 16.18 min, p < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in rotation of the femoral component (p = 0.07).ConclusionsThe meta-analysis demonstrated that gap balancing was able to achieve more precise coronal alignment with better short-term patient-reported outcomes compared with measured resection. Measured resection was more desirable than gap balancing with regard to restoration of the joint line and operative time. Comparable femoral rotational alignment was observed.

Highlights

  • Measured resection and gap balancing are two distinct methods for proper femoral component alignment in total knee arthroplasty

  • Four hundred and forty-one knees were treated with gap balancing and 416 were treated with measured resection

  • We believed the pooling of comparable outcomes and the identification of sources of heterogeneity are the best option for meta-analysis. Conclusions from these substantially heterogeneous outcomes should be interpreted with caution. In summary, this meta-analysis indicated that gap balancing was able to achieve more precise coronal alignment with better short-term patient-reported outcomes compared with measured resection

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Measured resection and gap balancing are two distinct methods for proper femoral component alignment in total knee arthroplasty. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare measured resection and gap balancing with regard to the radiological and clinical benefits, and to examine whether this change the conclusions from previous trails. There are two distinct methods for proper femoral component alignment reported in the literature: measured resection (MR) and gap balancing (GB) [6]. Decision-making regarding gap balancing versus measured resection during TKA is controversial. Patient-reported outcome is an important aspect of clinical decision-making during TKA [10]. Previous studies have compared patient-reported outcomes between the two techniques, and in those series, no difference has been observed [11,12,13]. Since the publication of those studies, several randomized controlled trials have been conducted and published [14,15,16]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.