| Abstrakt: |
Introduction: The aim of this meta-analysis of comparative studies was to update the current evidence on functional and radiographic outcomes and complications between medial and lateral approaches for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for valgus knee deformity. Materials and methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central databases were used to search keywords and a total of ten studies were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Data extracted for quantitative analysis included the Knee Society score (KSS), range of motion (ROM), surgical time, hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA), and number and types of complications. Random- and fixed-effect models were used for the meta-analysis of pooled mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs). The Mantel–Haenszel method was adopted. Results: A total of 1008 patients were identified, of whom 689 and 319 underwent TKA for valgus knee deformity with lateral and medial approach, respectively. The mean age was 70 ± 9.5 and 67.3 ± 9.6 years for the lateral and medial approaches, respectively. The mean follow-up was 37.8 ± 21.9 and 45.9 ± 26.7 months for the lateral and medial approach groups, respectively. Significantly higher functional outcomes were found for the medial approach, as measured by the postoperative KSS (MD = 1.8, 95% CI [0.48, 3.12], P = 0.007) and flexion ROM (MD = 3.12, 95% CI [0.45, 5.79], P = 0.02). However, both of these differences were lower than the minimal clinically important difference. Comparable surgical time and postoperative HKA angle values (MD = 0.22, 95% CI [− 0.30, 0.75], P = 0.40) between the two surgical approaches were found. The incidence of periprosthetic joint infections, fractures, transient peroneal nerve injuries, and deep vein thrombosis was comparable. Conclusion: This meta-analysis of comparative studies showed that when lateral and medial approaches are used for total knee arthroplasty for valgus knee deformity, comparable functional outcomes in terms of the KSS and ROM, surgical time, and postoperative hip–knee–ankle angle values can be expected. Similar rates of periprosthetic joint infection, fracture, and peroneal nerve injury were also found. Level of evidence: I. PROSPERO registration number ID: CRD42023392807. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink