Dataset Information

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA (bicompartmental knee arthroplasty), BIU (bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), and KJD (knee joint distraction). The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies comparing two or more surgical interventions. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

Results

This NMA and systematic review included 21 studies (17 RCTs), with a total of 1749 patients. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 7 studies had low risk, 5 had some concerns, and 9 had high risk. SUCRA (the surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings revealed that KJD had the greatest risk of appearing postoperative complications, revisions, and reoperations, and UKA or TKA had the lowest risk. The majority of comparisons among various treatments showed no difference for functional outcomes.

Conclusion

Each surgical intervention is noninferior to other treatments in functional outcomes, but UKA and TKA are better options to treat OA according to SUCRA rankings by comparing complications, revisions, and reoperations. KJD is an imperfect option for treating OA. Other treatments should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their actual conditions. However, this conclusion is limited by the selection of reviewed publications and individual variation of surgical indications for patients.

Trial registration

This study was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1395).

SUBMITTER: Bin G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10122318 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Bin Geng G Jinmin Liu L Cong Tian T Yuchen Tang T Xiaohui Zhang Z Yayi Xia X

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20230422 1

<h4>Background</h4>Multiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA ( ...[more]

PMID: 37087428

Similar Datasets

Project description:Traditional Chinese medication (TCM) has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We conducted the first systematic review of the best quantitative and qualitative evidence currently available in order to evaluate the effectiveness of TCM in relieving pain in knee OA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using three English and four Chinese biomedical databases from their inception through March 1, 2015. We included randomized controlled trials of TCM for knee OA with intervention durations of at least two weeks. The effects of TCM on pain and other clinical symptoms were measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The total effectiveness rate, which was used to assess overall pain, physical performance and wellness, was also measured. Two researchers independently extracted data on study design, population characteristics, duration, intervention, outcomes, risk of bias, and primary results. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis when appropriate. We also explored factors that could explain the heterogeneity by conducting subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Twenty-three studies, totaling 2362 subjects, met the eligibility criteria. Treatments were formulated with an average of 8 Chinese herbs and were prescribed based on the traditional Chinese diagnostic method of syndrome differentiation. The mean treatment duration was seven weeks, with oral administration occurring one to three times a day. Compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and intra-articular hyaluronate injections, 18 of the studies showed significantly improved VAS pain scores (Mean Difference [MD] [Formula: see text] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.94; [Formula: see text]), six of the studies showed significantly improved WOMAC pain subscale scores (MD [Formula: see text] 2.23; 95% CI, 0.56 to 3.91; [Formula: see text]), and 16 of the trials showed significantly improved total effectiveness rates (risk ratio [Formula: see text] 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.19; [Formula: see text] 0.0003). In addition, TCM showed a lower risk of adverse events than standard western treatments. This evidence suggests that TCM is safe and effective for improving pain, function, and wellness in treatments of knee OA. However, there is inherent clinical heterogeneity (diverse TCM formulations, controls, and treatment regimens) among the included trials. Despite these limitations, the potential analgesic effects of TCM warrant further methodologically rigorous research to determine the clinical implications of TCM on pain management in knee OA.

Project description:BackgroundDespite several surgical options, there remains no consensus regarding the optimal approach for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), a prevalent and refractory disease. To determine the most suitable treatment modality, we compared randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated multiple surgical treatments for ONFH using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsThe outcomes of 11 different surgical treatments were assessed using NMA comparisons of the rate of progression of femoral head necrosis, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and improvement of the Harris hip score (HHS). A random effects model was used to analyze the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for randomized trials. The confidence of the results was assessed using the confidence in network meta-analysis tool.ResultsA total of 18 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with core decompression (CD), the forest plot showed that autologous bone grafting (ABG), free fibula grafting (FFG), vascularized bone grafting (VBG), autologous bone grafting combined with bone marrow aspirate concentrate (ABG + BMAC), and biomaterial grafting combined with vascularized bone grafting (BMG + VBG) delayed ONFH progression. Among them, ABG + BMAC showed the most promising results (OR 0.019; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0012-0.25). However, upon comparing CD with different surgical modalities, no significant differences were found in preventing total hip arthroplasty. Furthermore, we cannot draw conclusions regarding the HHS due to attribution and high heterogeneity across the studies.ConclusionOverall, ABG, VBG, FFG, ABG + BMAC, and BMG + VBG showed significant results in preventing ONFH progression compared with that shown by CD. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking, ABG + BMAC was the most effective. Moreover, all treatments involving bone grafting were found to be effective, possibly indicating the necessity of its use in the treatment of ONFH.

Project description:BackgroundMinimal clinically important change (MCIC) represents the minimum patient-perceived improvement in an outcome after treatment, in an individual or within a group over time. This study aimed to determine MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach.MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched for studies of randomised clinical trials of non-surgical interventions with intervention duration of ≤ 3 months that reported change in (Δ) (mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention) knee flexion with Δ pain or Δ function measured using tools that have established MCIC values. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Bayesian meta-analytic models were used to determine relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function after non-surgical interventions and MCIC of knee flexion.ResultsSeventy-two studies (k = 72, n = 5174) were eligible. Meta-analyses included 140 intervention arms (k = 61, n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain using the visual analog scale (pain-VAS) and Δ function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale (function-WOMAC). Linear relationships between Δ pain at rest-VAS (0-100 mm) with Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.44; - 0.15) (β: posterior median (CrI: credible interval)). Relationships between Δ pain during activity VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.41, - 0.18), and Δ pain-general VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.33 (- 0.42, - 0.23). The relationship between Δ function-WOMAC (out of 100) and Δ flexion was - 0.15 (- 0.25, - 0.07). Increased Δ flexion was associated with decreased Δ pain-VAS and increased Δ function-WOMAC. The point estimates for MCIC of knee flexion ranged from 3.8 to 6.4°.ConclusionsThe estimated knee flexion MCIC values from this study are the first to be reported using a novel meta-analytical method. The novel meta-analytical method may be useful to estimate MCIC for other measures where anchor questions are problematic.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022323927.

Project description:Background: There is increased interest in proprioceptive training for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, little consensus supports the effectiveness of this intervention. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of proprioceptive training on symptoms, function, and proprioception in people with KOA. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to April 16, 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by calculating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used for the analyses. Results: A total of 24 RCTs involving 1,275 participants were included in our analysis. This study indicated that compared to no intervention, proprioceptive training significantly improved pain, stiffness, physical function, joint position sense (JPS), muscle strength, mobility, and knee ROM (P < 0.05) in people with KOA. When compared to other non-proprioceptive training, proprioceptive training provided better results in terms of JPS (SMD = -1.28, 95%CI: [-1.64, -0.92], I 2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) and mobility (timed walk over spongy surface) (SMD = -0.76, 95%CI: [-1.33, -0.18], I 2 = 64%, P = 0.01), and other results are similar. When proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training compared to other non-proprioceptive training, the two groups showed similar outcomes, but there was a greater improvement for JPS (SMD = -1.54, 95%CI: [-2.74, -0.34], I 2 = 79%, P = 0.01), physical function (SMD = -0.34, 95%CI: [-0.56, -0.12], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.003), and knee ROM (P < 0.05) in the proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training group. When proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy compared against conventional physiotherapy, the two groups demonstrated similar outcomes, but there was a significant improvement for JPS (SMD = -0.95, 95%CI: [-1.73, -0.18], I 2 = 78%, P = 0.02) in the proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy group. Conclusions: Proprioceptive training is safe and effective in treating KOA. There is some evidence that proprioceptive training combined with general non-proprioceptive training or conventional physiotherapy appears to be more effective and should be considered as part of the rehabilitation program. However, given that the majority of current studies investigated the short-term effect of these proprioceptive training programs, more large-scale and well-designed studies with long-term follow up are needed to determine the long-term effects of these proprioceptive training regimes in KOA. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021240587.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of knee osteoarthritis involves various treatment strategies. It is important to explore alternative therapies that are both safe and effective. Collagen peptides have emerged as a potential intervention for knee osteoarthritis. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic effects and safety of collagen peptide in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Multiple databases including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 27 May 2023 that focused on the analgesic outcomes and adverse events associated with collagen peptides or hydrolyzed collagen in patients with osteoarthritis. We assessed the quality of the included studies and the strength of evidence using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations.ResultsFour trials involving 507 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included and analyzed using the random-effects model. All these trials were considered to have a high risk of bias. Our results revealed a significant difference in pain relief between the collagen peptide group and the placebo group in patients with knee osteoarthritis (standardized mean difference: - 0.58; 95% CI - 0.98, - 0.18, p = 0.004; I2: 68%; quality of evidence: moderate). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events between collagen peptide and placebo (odds ratio: 1.66; 95% CI 0.99, 2.78, p = 0.05; I2: 0%; quality of evidence: very low).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate significant pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis who received collagen peptides compared to those who received placebo. In addition, the risk of adverse events did not differ significantly between the collagen peptide group and the placebo group. However, due to potential biases and limitations, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate and confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets