Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundLong-term outcomes for knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain inconclusive.ObjectivesThis study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes over five years, including Knee Society Pain Scores (KSPS), Knee Society Scores (KSS), Knee Society Function Scores (KSFS), range of motion (ROM), and survival rates—of UKA vs. TKA in knee osteoarthritis patients.DesignSystematic review using data from randomized controlled and cohort trials, and world databases.Data sourcesResearchers searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1990 to March 2024.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesThe researchers selected studies based on adult participants with knee osteoarthritis. Eligible studies compare UKA and TKA reports on clinical or surgical outcomes, including KSPS, KSS, KSFS, ROM and survival rates, over 5 years. The researchers excluded the studies fewer than five years, or if English text was unavailable.ResultsResearchers categorized twenty-nine eligible studies into three groups: five randomized controlled trials, 11 registries and database studies, and 13 cohort studies. The analysis revealed that neither TKA nor UKA definitively outperformed the other in terms of pain (SMD (95% CI): −0.06 [−0.41, 0.28], I2 = 90%) and KSS scores (SMD (95% CI): −0.07 [−0.23, 0.008], I2 = 81%) over a period of five years. However, KSFS (SMD (95% CI): −0.30 [−0.43, −0.17], I2 = 74%) and ROM (SMD (95% CI): −0.78 [−1.11, −0.46], I2 = 92%) tended to favor UKA, and survival rate favor TKA at 5 or over 5-year follow-up periods.ConclusionsUKA shows a trend towards better outcomes in KSFS and ROM, alongside a more favorable survival rate in TKA at the five-year and beyond follow-up periods.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=517835, PROSPERO (CRD42024517835).
BackgroundLong-term outcomes for knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain inconclusive.ObjectivesThis study aims to evaluate the long-term outcomes over five years, including Knee Society Pain Scores (KSPS), Knee Society Scores (KSS), Knee Society Function Scores (KSFS), range of motion (ROM), and survival rates—of UKA vs. TKA in knee osteoarthritis patients.DesignSystematic review using data from randomized controlled and cohort trials, and world databases.Data sourcesResearchers searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1990 to March 2024.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesThe researchers selected studies based on adult participants with knee osteoarthritis. Eligible studies compare UKA and TKA reports on clinical or surgical outcomes, including KSPS, KSS, KSFS, ROM and survival rates, over 5 years. The researchers excluded the studies fewer than five years, or if English text was unavailable.ResultsResearchers categorized twenty-nine eligible studies into three groups: five randomized controlled trials, 11 registries and database studies, and 13 cohort studies. The analysis revealed that neither TKA nor UKA definitively outperformed the other in terms of pain (SMD (95% CI): −0.06 [−0.41, 0.28], I2 = 90%) and KSS scores (SMD (95% CI): −0.07 [−0.23, 0.008], I2 = 81%) over a period of five years. However, KSFS (SMD (95% CI): −0.30 [−0.43, −0.17], I2 = 74%) and ROM (SMD (95% CI): −0.78 [−1.11, −0.46], I2 = 92%) tended to favor UKA, and survival rate favor TKA at 5 or over 5-year follow-up periods.ConclusionsUKA shows a trend towards better outcomes in KSFS and ROM, alongside a more favorable survival rate in TKA at the five-year and beyond follow-up periods.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=517835, PROSPERO (CRD42024517835).
The use of three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis to image femorotibial translation can aid in the diagnosis of pathology and provide additional insight into the severity of KOA (knee osteoarthritis). Femorotibial translation is of particular importance in patients undergoing UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), as the absence or elongation of ligamentous structures results in changes in the kinematic alignment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the parameters of femorotibial translation in patients with MOA (medial unicompartmental OA). An artificial model was employed to develop a method for calculating femorotibial translation in vitro. In a prospective cohort study, gait data using three-dimensional gait analysis were collected from 11 patients (68.73 ± 9.22 years) with severe OA scheduled for UKA and 29 unmatched healthy participants (22.07 ± 2.23 years). The discrete variables characterising femorotibial translation were compared for statistical significance (p < 0.05) using the Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U-test. The results of the study validated an artificial model to mimic femorotibial translation. The comparison of patients scheduled for UKA and a healthy unmatched control group showed no statistically significant differences concerning femorotibial translation in all three planes (p > 0.05). However, the PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures), spatiotemporal, and kinematic parameters showed statistically significant differences between the groups (p < 0.001). The data presented here demonstrate typical changes in PROMs as well as spatiotemporal and kinematic outcomes for MOA as seen in knee OA. The results of the clinical gait analyses demonstrate individualised femorotibial translation. The extent of individual femorotibial translation may prove to be an important parameter for altered joint kinematics in patients with MOA, especially prior to UKA implantation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.