Posterior-Stabilized Versus Cruciate-Retaining Prostheses for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Risk of Bias Considerations.

Mei, F; Li, J; Zhang, L; Gao, J; Li, H; Zhou, D; Xing, D; Lin, J

Posterior-Stabilized Versus Cruciate-Retaining Prostheses for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Risk of Bias Considerations.

Mei, F Li, J

Zhang, L Gao, J Li, H Zhou, D Xing, D Lin, J

Permalink

Publisher:: SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Indian J Orthop, 2022, 56, (11), pp. 1858-1870
Issue Date:: 2022-11

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	s43465-022-00693-6.pdf		2.47 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Mei, F
dc.contributor.author	Li, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3584-6765
dc.contributor.author	Zhang, L
dc.contributor.author	Gao, J
dc.contributor.author	Li, H
dc.contributor.author	Zhou, D
dc.contributor.author	Xing, D
dc.contributor.author	Lin, J
dc.date.accessioned	2023-01-18T05:21:44Z
dc.date.available	2022-06-21
dc.date.available	2023-01-18T05:21:44Z
dc.date.issued	2022-11
dc.identifier.citation	Indian J Orthop, 2022, 56, (11), pp. 1858-1870
dc.identifier.issn	0019-5413
dc.identifier.issn	1998-3727
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/165127
dc.description.abstract	BACKGROUND: Numerous systematic reviews have been published comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing posterior stabilized (PS) versus cruciate-retaining (CR) procedures in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but with some overlaps and contradictions. The objectives of this study were (1) to perform an overview of current systematic reviews comparing PS versus CR in TKA, by evaluating their methodological quality and risk of bias, and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence. METHODS: A systematic search of systematic reviews comparing PS and CR in TKA, published until June 2021 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Included systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias by the AMSTAR2 instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. The choice of best evidence was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm. RESULTS: A total of eight systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion in this study. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that reviews with the highest AMSTAR2 scores should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three reviews with a low risk of bias and five with a high risk of bias. Consequently, one systematic review conducted by Verra et al. with the highest AMSTAR2 score and low risk of bias was selected as the best evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although current systematic reviews demonstrated some statistical differences in clinical presentation and functional outcomes between PS and CR, the current outcome indicators cannot be taken to provide recommendations for undergoing PS or CR. The decision for prosthesis selection could be made mostly based on the surgeon's preference, indications and other indicators.
dc.format	Electronic-eCollection
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
dc.relation.ispartof	Indian J Orthop
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s43465-022-00693-6
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences
dc.title	Posterior-Stabilized Versus Cruciate-Retaining Prostheses for Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Risk of Bias Considerations.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	56
utslib.location.activity	Switzerland
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Biomedical Engineering
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-01-18T05:21:42Z
pubs.issue	11
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	56
utslib.citation.issue	11

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Numerous systematic reviews have been published comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing posterior stabilized (PS) versus cruciate-retaining (CR) procedures in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but with some overlaps and contradictions. The objectives of this study were (1) to perform an overview of current systematic reviews comparing PS versus CR in TKA, by evaluating their methodological quality and risk of bias, and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence. METHODS: A systematic search of systematic reviews comparing PS and CR in TKA, published until June 2021 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Included systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias by the AMSTAR2 instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. The choice of best evidence was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm. RESULTS: A total of eight systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion in this study. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that reviews with the highest AMSTAR2 scores should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three reviews with a low risk of bias and five with a high risk of bias. Consequently, one systematic review conducted by Verra et al. with the highest AMSTAR2 score and low risk of bias was selected as the best evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although current systematic reviews demonstrated some statistical differences in clinical presentation and functional outcomes between PS and CR, the current outcome indicators cannot be taken to provide recommendations for undergoing PS or CR. The decision for prosthesis selection could be made mostly based on the surgeon's preference, indications and other indicators.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/165127