Abstract
To compare clinical outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review and meta-regression to compare postoperative outcomes of pain VAS, knee function score, range of motion, complications and revision surgery rates between UKA and TKA were conducted. Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and Scopus from inception to August 29, 2014. Three of 1056 studies were eligible; two, three, two, three and three studies were included in pooling of pain visual analog score (VAS), Knee Society Score (KSS) and Bristol Knee Score (BKS), maximum knee flexion, postoperative complications (aseptic loosening, progressive degenerative joint disease of lateral compartment, bearing dislocation, DVT, fractures and infection) and revision rates, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference (UMD) of the function scores (KSS, BS) for UKA was 1.62 (95 % CI -1.17, 4.42) better than TKA and for pain score was 0.1 (95 % CI -3.54, 3.73) higher than TKA, but both without statistical significance. UKA was more likely to show higher mean maximum knee flexion with a UMD of 1.88 (95 % CI -0.54, 4.30) when compared to TKA, but was also not statistically significant. UKA had a statistically significant lower chance of postoperative complications by 0.35 U (95 % CI 0.12, 0.98) when compared to TKA, but had higher revision rates than TKA with a value of 5.36 (95 % CI 1.06, 27.08). In short-term outcomes (5 years or less, with follow-up of 0-5 years), TKA had higher postoperative complications than UKA, but had lower revision rates. There was only one study that reported long-term survivorship (more than 5 years, with follow-up of 5-15 years). Further research that assesses long-term survivorship is necessary to better evaluate UKA and TKA in the treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
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.
