Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies

From: A meta-analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty

References

Years

Patients (n) rUKA/pTKA

Mean age (years) rUKA/pTKA

Female rUKA/pTKA

Mean follow-up (years)

Mean BMI (kg/m2) rUKA/pTKA

Outcome

Järvenpää J [5]

2010

21/28

74.9(7.4)/75.2(7.2)

12/17

10.5

28.5(4)/30.5(4.4)

Hospital stay, ROM, WOMAC scores, revisions, complications, requirement of augments, stems, and bone grafts

Rancourt MF [9]

2012

63/126

67.49(10.24)/66.71(9.77)

45/90

3

31.6(6.15)/32.53(6.57)

Hospital stay, WOMAC scores, mean polyethylene thickness, requirement of augments, stems, and bone grafts

Lunebourg A [11]

2015

48/48

71(9)/72(12)

36/32

7

28(4)/28(4)

ROM, KSS, mean polyethylene thickness, revisions, complications, requirement of augments, stems, and bone grafts

Becker R [10]

2004

28/28

71.5(6.8)/71.5(6.6)

23/23

4.6

31.2(3.2)/31.1(4.4)

ROM, WOMAC scores, KSS

Cross MB [12]

2014

49/97

61.5/58.9

30/50

4.8

31.65/32.76

hospital stay, ROM, KSS, revisions, complications, requirement of augments, stems, and bone grafts

  1. rUKA revised unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, pTKA primary total knee arthroplasty, BMI body mass index, ROM range of motion, WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, KSS Knee Society Score