Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies

From: Medial pivot prosthesis has a better functional score and lower complication rate than posterior-stabilized prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Year

MP

PS

Design

Follow-up (years)

Outcomes*

Quality assessment

Sample size

Age (years)

Gender (male/female)

BMI (kg/m2)

Prosthesis

Sample size

Age (years)

Gender (male/female)

BMI (kg/m2)

Prosthesis

Lee [18]

2020

46

70 ± 7

14/32

27.4 ± 4.0

Advance

46

70 ± 7

14/32

27.4 ± 4

N/A*

RCT

1

1, 2, 3, 4, 7

Figure 2

Edelstein [19]

2020

25

67 ± 8

7/18

32.8 ± 5.8

GMK Sphere

25

64 ± 7

10/15

34.2 ± 5.8

GMK PS

RCT

2

1, 3, 4, 5, 7

Figure 2

Yuan [20]

2020

49

69.43 ± 5.97

22/27

27.81 ± 5.17

Advance

51

69.63 ± 5.72

23/28

27.59 ± 4.86

NexGen

Case–control study

5

2, 6, 9

8

Kim [21]

2009

92

69.5 ± 7.92

7/85

27.8 ± 3.15

Advance

92

69.5 ± 7.92

7/85

27.8 ± 3.15

PFC Sigma

RCT

2

1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

Figure 2

Hossain [22]

2011

40

72.5 ± 9.7

9/31

28.9 ± 6.2

MRK

40

68.9 ± 12.1

18/22

29.5 ± 8.1

PFC

RCT

2

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

Figure 2

Anderson [23]

2002

20

69 (38–89)

6/14

N/A

Advance

20

70 (47–84)

9/11

N/A

Axiom PSK

Case–control study

1

1, 9, 10

7

Bae [24]

2016

150

66.7 ± 7.1

4/120

26.4 ± 3.2

Advance

150

66.7 ± 6.5

2/136

25.9 ± 4.4

PFC Sigma

Case–control study

5

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11

7

Batra [25]

2020

53

61.7 ± 6.88

42/11

28.3 ± 3.4

Advance

53

61.7 ± 6.88

42/11

28.3 ± 3.4

Genesis II

RCT

4

1, 5, 8

Figure 2

Benjamin [26]

2018

10

64.8 (58–73)

7/3

N/A

SAIPH

10

62.4 (54 -71)

6/4

N/A

Press Fit Triathlon

RCT

1

3, 5

Figure 2

Kulshrestha [27]

2020

40

63.8 ± 6.8

11/29

27.34 ± 5.1

Advance

40

65.97 ± 6.7

17/23

26.64 ± 4.3

NexGen

RCT

2

7, 9, 11

Figure 2

Dowsey [28]

2020

29

66 ± 6.8

14/15

32.5 ± 3.6

GMK Sphere

26

65.7 ± 7.7

15/11

30.7 ± 3.8

GMK PS

RCT

1

2, 3, 4, 5, 9

Figure 2

Tan [29]

2021

12

70.8 ± 3.9

3/9

27.4 ± 2.6

Evolution

12

67.7 ± 4.9

3/9

26.9 ± 2.9

Genesis II

Case–control study

2

7

7

Lin [4]

2020

103

70.38 ± 6.37

70/33

N/A

Advance

17,893

69.32 ± 7.4274.18 ± 5.89

5/173 44/49

N/A

NexGen/NRG

Case–control study

1.6

1

8

Zhang [30]

2020

98

67.5 ± 6.5

24/74

27.3 ± 3.0

Advance

109

65.4 ± 6.2

29/80

27.6 ± 3.0

NexGen

Case–control study

1 (month)

1

8

Wang [8]

2021

126

66.92 ± 5.60

24/102

27.74 ± 4.63

Advance

126

67.15 ± 6.01

22/104

27.90 ± 4.39

NexGen

Case–control study

1

1, 2, 3, 4, 9

7

Papagiannis [32]

2016

24

70.25 ± 1.96

N/A

N/A

Advance

22

72.92 ± 1.46

N/A

N/A

RP-PS

Case–control study

2–3

1, 3, 4

7

Shi [11]

2020

290

74.5 ± 6.97

62/228

27.89 ± 3.65

Advance

237

75.4 ± 5.70

68/169

27.43 ± 3.51

NexGen

Case–control study

6–7

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10

8

Samy [5]

2018

76

64.4 ± 10.5

29/47

29.7 (± 5.24)

Evolution

88

66.7 ± 8.61

34/54

31.3 ± 8.20

Persona

Case–control study

1

1, 7, 9, 10, 11

7

Shakespeare [31]

2006

261

76

133/128

 < 30

Advance

288

78

138/150

 < 30

913 PS

Case–control study

1

11

7

  1. *Outcomes: 1. ROM, range of motion; 2. WOMAC, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index; 3. KSS, knee society score; 4. KSFS, knee society function score; 5. OKS, Oxford knee score; 6. HSS, Hospital for Special Surgery scoring system; 7. FJS, the forgotten joint score; 8. Radiological data; 9. Complication (rate); 10. Revision rate; 11. Flexion range
  2. *N/A, Not Applicable
Back to article page

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X