Medial pivot design does not yield superior results compared to posterior‐stabilised total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised control trials
Panagiotis Kakoulidis, Sousana Panagiotidou, Georgios Profitiliotis, Kyriakos Papavasiliou, Eleftherios Tsiridis, C Topalis
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was a comparison between medial pivot (MP) and posterior-stabilised (PS) knee designs regarding functional and radiological outcomes as well as gait parameters. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Clinical Trials.gov from conception up to April 2022, to identify eligible randomised control trials (RCTs). The extracted data were analysed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria, enrolling 1101 patients who underwent 1242 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). A total of 1158 TKAs (581 MP/577 PS) were included in the quantitative analysis. Mean follow-up ranged from 6 months up to 6.6 years. MP knees showed comparable range of motion (ROM) with PS design 1, 2 and 4 years postoperatively (p = 0.2, p = 0.25, p = 0.34, respectively). No statistical difference was found in patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) (p > 0.05). Mean walking speed (MWS), length of stay (LOS), radiographic alignment and complications rates were also similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). DISCUSSION: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that the theoretical biomechanical advantage of MP implants does not have a better impact on patient satisfaction compared to the traditional PS knees. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.