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