scholarly journals Non-inferiority of The Cementless Total TKA Compared to The Cemented TKA, A m-Metanalysis

Acta Medica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Tommaso Bonanzinga ◽  
Francesco Manlio Gambaro ◽  
Riccardo Garibaldi ◽  
Federico Adravanti ◽  
Gerardo Fusco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Oxford Knee Score ◽  
Visual Analogue Score ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasties ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Current Systematic Review ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Total Knee

Objective: Cemented total knee arthroplasty still represents the reference standard in the field of prothesis knee replacement; but since cementless total knee arthroplasties were introduced there have been strong discussions over the years among cemented and non-cemented total knee arthroplasties to establish which gives the best benefits for the patient and for the surgeon. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically analyze the use of cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasties by investigating clinical and radiological outcomes and rate of complications, in order to assess which techniques confers more benefits to the patient and the surgeon. Materials and Methods: The current systematic review has been written in accordance to the Cochrane handbook and the PRISMA statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network. Results: Six randomized controlled trials were finally included in this systematic review. The statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in all clinical scores of interest (Knee Society Score, clinical and functional, Oxford Knee Score, Visual Analogue Score) and a similar revision rate. Conclusion: the results of the current metanalysis suggest the non-inferiority of cementless fixation with respect to cemented total knee arthroplasties in terms of clinical outcomes and survival rates of the implants.

Greater risk of all‐cause revisions and complications for obese patients in 3 106 381 total knee arthroplasties: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Randolph Onggo ◽  
James Jia Ming Ang ◽  
Jason Derry Onggo ◽  
Richard de Steiger ◽  
Raphael Hau
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasties ◽  
Total Knee

scholarly journals Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roodabeh Koodaryan ◽  
Ali Hafezeqoran
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Present Systematic Review

Background. It is important to understand the influence of different collar designs on peri-implant marginal bone loss, especially in the critical area.Objectives. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare dental implants with different collar surfaces, evaluating marginal bone loss and survival rates of implants.Methods. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective studies, which evaluated dental implants with different collar surface in the same study.Results. Twelve articles were included, with a total of 492 machined, 319 rough-surfaced, and 352 rough-surfaced microthreaded neck implants. There was less marginal bone loss at implants with rough-surfaced and rough-surfaced microthreaded neck than at machined-neck implants (difference in means: 0.321, 95% CI: 0.149 to 0.493;p<0.01).Conclusion. Rough and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants are considered a predictable treatment for preserving early marginal bone loss.

scholarly journals Effect of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linbo Peng ◽  
Kexin Wang ◽  
Yi Zeng ◽  
Yuangang Wu ◽  
Haibo Si ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Quadriceps Muscle ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quadriceps Muscle Strength ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Total Knee

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on quadriceps muscle strength, pain, and function outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus, PsycINFO, PEDro, CINAHL, CNKI, and Wanfang were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to 18 June 2021.Results: Nine RCTs that involving 691 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis showed that NMES improved quadriceps muscle strength after TKA within 1 months [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51–1.11], 1–2 months (SMD: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.13–0.97), 3–4 months (SMD: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.18–0.66), and 12–13 months (SMD: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.18–0.74), pain between 1 and 2 months [mean difference (MD): −0.62; 95% CI: −1.04 to −0.19], pain between 3 and 6 months (MD: −0.44; 95% CI: −0.74 to −0.14) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) between 3 and 4 months (MD: −0.43; 95% CI: −0.82 to −0.05), timed up and go test (TUG) within 1 month (MD: −2.23; 95% CI: −3.40 to −1.07), 3 minutes walk test between 3 and 6 months (MD: 28.35; 95% CI: 14.55–42.15), and SF-36 MCS between 3 and 6 months after TKA (MD: 4.20, 95% CI: 2.41–5.98).Conclusion: As a supplementary treatment after TKA, postoperative NMES could improve the short-term to long-term quadriceps muscle strength, mid-term pain, and mid-term function following TKA. However, many outcomes failed to achieve statistically meaningful changes and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), thus the clinical benefits remained to be confirmed.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level I.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021265609.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document