Background: Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a viable solution for isolated lateral compartment arthritis. Several prosthetic designs are available such as fixed-bearing metal-backed (FB M-B), fixed-bearing all-polyethylene (FB A-P), and mobile-bearing metal-backed (MB M-B) implants. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare failure rates of different prosthetic designs. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review was conducted using 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed) to identify all studies that investigate outcomes of lateral UKA. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, and failure rates were compared by implant type and follow-up time separately in order to assess potential confounding factors. Two separate analyses have been performed among different implant designs (FB M-B vs FB A-P vs MB M-B) and different follow-ups (<5 years, between 5 and 10 years, >10 years). Results: The failure rate of FB M-B lateral UKA was significantly lower compared to other lateral UKA designs present in the market (0.8% vs 8.6% and 7.1% for FB M-B, FB A-P, and MB M-B, respectively). No significative difference among groups has been detected when comparing all implants with regard to follow-up time. Conclusion: Considering actual evidence, for a surgeon approaching lateral UKA, the FB M-B design is preferable, given the lower failure rates and subsequently a longer implant survivorship.
Does Implant Design Influence Failure Rate of Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty? A Meta-Analysis
Fratini, Stefano;Alesi, Domenico;Cammisa, Eugenio;Zaffagnini, Stefano;Marcheggiani Muccioli, Giulio Maria
2022
Abstract
Background: Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a viable solution for isolated lateral compartment arthritis. Several prosthetic designs are available such as fixed-bearing metal-backed (FB M-B), fixed-bearing all-polyethylene (FB A-P), and mobile-bearing metal-backed (MB M-B) implants. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare failure rates of different prosthetic designs. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review was conducted using 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed) to identify all studies that investigate outcomes of lateral UKA. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, and failure rates were compared by implant type and follow-up time separately in order to assess potential confounding factors. Two separate analyses have been performed among different implant designs (FB M-B vs FB A-P vs MB M-B) and different follow-ups (<5 years, between 5 and 10 years, >10 years). Results: The failure rate of FB M-B lateral UKA was significantly lower compared to other lateral UKA designs present in the market (0.8% vs 8.6% and 7.1% for FB M-B, FB A-P, and MB M-B, respectively). No significative difference among groups has been detected when comparing all implants with regard to follow-up time. Conclusion: Considering actual evidence, for a surgeon approaching lateral UKA, the FB M-B design is preferable, given the lower failure rates and subsequently a longer implant survivorship.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
