Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, is it superior to high tibial osteotomy in treating unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis and systemic review

Table 3 Result of the meta-analysis

Outcome	Studies	Sample size		Effect estimate	P	Effect estimate	Heterogeneity
Outcome	Studies	HTO	UKA	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P	STD (95% CI)	I ² (%)	Chi² (P)
Pain assesment (no/mild)	5	194	155	0.34 [0.13, 0.91]	0.03		61	0.08
Excellent/good (E/G) result	10	353	317	0.37 [0.24, 0.58]	<0.00001		39	0.11
Excellent/good result (medial OA/varus)	5	110	117	0.75 [0.37, 1.52]	0.43		19	0.29
Subgroup: E/G CWHTO-UKA	6	153	140	0.36 [0.21, 0.61]	0.01		56	0.06
Subgroup: E/G OWHTO-UKA	3	104	111	0.70 [0.26, 1.91]	0.49		0	0.66
Knee score	7	262	317		0.11	−0.21 [−0.47, 0.05]	51	0.05
Lysholm knee score	3	92	126		0.08	−0.53 [−1.12, 0.06]	71	0.03
Knee Society Score (KSS)	2	59	60		0.59	0.10 [−0.26, 0.46]	0	0.88
Deterioration of contralateral	2	107	92	2.24 [0.30, 16.72]	0.43		74	0.05
Deterioration of patellofemoral	2	107	92	2.01 [0.67, 6.04]	0.21		0	0.57
ROM	5	145	142		0.008	0.78 [0.21, 1.36]	80	0.0005
Velocity	3	51	51		0.66	−0.09 [−0.48, 0.30]	0	0.44
Complication	7	305	307	3.08 [1.76, 5.39]	<0.0001		7	0.37
Revision rate	11	880	5361	1.18 [0.54, 2.58]	0.68		74	<0.0001

HTO high tibial osteotomy, UKA unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, P p value, E/G excellent, good result, OA osteoarthritis, Varus varus deformity, STD Std mean difference, CI confidence interval

ISSN: 1749-799X