The Knee · 2021
Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) is equivalent to conventional polyethylene (CPE) in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sheridan G A, Clesham K, Garbuz D S, Masri B A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The benefits of HXLPE in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been as evident as total hip arthroplasty (THA). A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of highly-crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) on TKA outcomes compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE) is described.
METHODS: All studies comparing HXLPE with CPE for primary TKA were included for analysis. The minimum dataset included revision rates, indication for revision, aseptic component loosening and follow-up time. The primary outcome variables were all-cause revision, aseptic revision, revision for loosening, radiographic component loosening, osteolysis and incidence of radiolucent lines. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative functional knee scores. A random-effects meta-analysis allowing for all missing data was performed for all primary outcome variables.
RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 2,234 knees (1,105 HXLPE and 1,129 CPE). The combined mean follow-up for all studies was 6 years. The aseptic revision rate in the HXLPE group was 1.02% compared to 1.97% in the CPE group. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision (p = 0.131), aseptic revision (p = 0.298) or revision for component loosening (p = 0.206) between the two groups. Radiographic loosening (p = 0.200), radiolucent lines (p = 0.123) and osteolysis (p = 0.604) was similar between both groups. Functional outcomes were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION: The use of HXLPE in TKA yields similar results for clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared to CPE at midterm follow-up. HXLPE does not confer the same advantages to TKA as seen in THA.
METHODS: All studies comparing HXLPE with CPE for primary TKA were included for analysis. The minimum dataset included revision rates, indication for revision, aseptic component loosening and follow-up time. The primary outcome variables were all-cause revision, aseptic revision, revision for loosening, radiographic component loosening, osteolysis and incidence of radiolucent lines. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative functional knee scores. A random-effects meta-analysis allowing for all missing data was performed for all primary outcome variables.
RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 2,234 knees (1,105 HXLPE and 1,129 CPE). The combined mean follow-up for all studies was 6 years. The aseptic revision rate in the HXLPE group was 1.02% compared to 1.97% in the CPE group. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision (p = 0.131), aseptic revision (p = 0.298) or revision for component loosening (p = 0.206) between the two groups. Radiographic loosening (p = 0.200), radiolucent lines (p = 0.123) and osteolysis (p = 0.604) was similar between both groups. Functional outcomes were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION: The use of HXLPE in TKA yields similar results for clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared to CPE at midterm follow-up. HXLPE does not confer the same advantages to TKA as seen in THA.