Clinical Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty after High Tibial Osteotomy and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

As more high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are performed, orthopaedic surgeons realize that more HTO and UKA failures will require revision to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the future. To systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of TKA after HTO and TKA after UKA, the Embase, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies investigating revision TKA after HTO and UKA published up to June 2021. RevMan version 5.3 was used to perform the meta‐analysis. The revision TKA after HTO and revision TKA after UKA groups were compared in terms of operative time, range of motion (ROM), knee score, postoperative complications, postoperative infection, revision, and revision implants used. Nine studies were ultimately included in the meta‐analysis. Results revealed that the knee score for the revision TKA after HTO group was better than that of the revision TKA after UKA group (MD 4.50 [95% CI 0.80–8.20]; p = 0.02). The revision TKA after HTO group had a lower revision rate (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.55–0.78]; p < 0.00001) and fewer revision implants used (OR 0.11 [95% CI 0.05–0.23]; p < 0.00001). There were no statistical differences in operation time (MD ‐2.00 [95% CI −11.22 to 7.21]; p = 0.67), ROM (MD ‐0.04 [95% CI ‐3.69–3.61]; p = 0.98), postoperative complications (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.77–2.60]; p = 0.27), or postoperative infections (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.61–1.29]; p = 0.53). To conclude, the revision rate of revision TKA after UKA was greater, and more revision implants were required. It is important for orthopaedic surgeons to preserve bone during primary UKA.