A systematic comparative analysis of gait characteristics in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review study.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research Pub Date : 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1186/s13018-024-05308-4
Ming Zhang, Haoyue Wang, Zhiwei Cai, Haochong Zhang, Yifei Zhao, Xiaoran Zu, Cheng Wang, Xiang Li
{"title":"A systematic comparative analysis of gait characteristics in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review study.","authors":"Ming Zhang, Haoyue Wang, Zhiwei Cai, Haochong Zhang, Yifei Zhao, Xiaoran Zu, Cheng Wang, Xiang Li","doi":"10.1186/s13018-024-05308-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study systematically reviews recent research comparing clinical outcomes and gait function changes in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases was conducted, covering publications from January 2013 to September 2024, to identify studies evaluating changes in clinical scores and gait parameters in patients undergoing TKA or UKA. Following stringent selection criteria, data were synthesized from studies involving 171 TKA and 148 UKA patients, focusing on reported gait outcomes and aggregating findings for comprehensive analysis. Direct comparisons between TKA and UKA were performed to assess differences in clinical scores and gait parameters, aiming to elucidate the relative efficacy of each surgical approach and provide robust evidence for clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for post-operative gait outcome comparisons between TKA and UKA, with seven studies also addressing clinical scores. One study reported greater improvement in WOMAC scores for the UKA group at 6 months post-operation (P < 0.05), while another found superior EQ-5D scores for UKA patients at 1 year post-surgery (P < 0.05). Conversely, five studies found no significant differences in clinical scores between groups at 1 year (P > 0.05). All ten studies assessed gait parameter recovery, with three studies showing no significant differences at 1 year (P > 0.05). However, seven studies identified superior gait recovery in the UKA group across various parameters, including walking speed, step and stride length, single support time, heel strike force, knee joint range of motion, knee flexion angles during different gait phases, peak knee adduction moment, peak tibial internal rotation moment, gait symmetry, and stride length symmetry (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analysis indicates that UKA offers certain advantages in post-operative gait improvements compared to TKA, though these do not translate into significant differences in conventional clinical scoring systems. To enhance the reliability and generalizability of these findings, future studies should involve larger-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"821"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11616117/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05308-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study systematically reviews recent research comparing clinical outcomes and gait function changes in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Methods: A systematic search of the Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases was conducted, covering publications from January 2013 to September 2024, to identify studies evaluating changes in clinical scores and gait parameters in patients undergoing TKA or UKA. Following stringent selection criteria, data were synthesized from studies involving 171 TKA and 148 UKA patients, focusing on reported gait outcomes and aggregating findings for comprehensive analysis. Direct comparisons between TKA and UKA were performed to assess differences in clinical scores and gait parameters, aiming to elucidate the relative efficacy of each surgical approach and provide robust evidence for clinical decision-making.

Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for post-operative gait outcome comparisons between TKA and UKA, with seven studies also addressing clinical scores. One study reported greater improvement in WOMAC scores for the UKA group at 6 months post-operation (P < 0.05), while another found superior EQ-5D scores for UKA patients at 1 year post-surgery (P < 0.05). Conversely, five studies found no significant differences in clinical scores between groups at 1 year (P > 0.05). All ten studies assessed gait parameter recovery, with three studies showing no significant differences at 1 year (P > 0.05). However, seven studies identified superior gait recovery in the UKA group across various parameters, including walking speed, step and stride length, single support time, heel strike force, knee joint range of motion, knee flexion angles during different gait phases, peak knee adduction moment, peak tibial internal rotation moment, gait symmetry, and stride length symmetry (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The analysis indicates that UKA offers certain advantages in post-operative gait improvements compared to TKA, though these do not translate into significant differences in conventional clinical scoring systems. To enhance the reliability and generalizability of these findings, future studies should involve larger-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.
期刊最新文献
Advancements in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Exploration and breakthrough in the mode of intervertebral disc cell death may lead to significant advances in treatments for intervertebral disc degeneration. WTAP mediates IL-1β-induced chondrocyte injury by enhancing CA12 mRNA stability depending on m6A modification. A systematic comparative analysis of gait characteristics in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review study. Biofilm and the effect of sonication in a chronic Staphylococcus epidermidis orthopedic in vivo implant infection model.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1