Skip to main content

Table 2 League tables between two-by-two comparisons

From: Different modalities of patellar management in primary total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

RP

A

   
 

0.44(0.24,0.63)

B

  
 

3.01(0.17,126.32)

7.11(0.42,312.88)

C

 
 

0.7(0.16,2.25)

1.6(0.41,5.87)

0.23(0.01,2.8)

D

AKP

A

   
 

0.58(0.32,1)

B

  
 

0.59(0.05,5.06)

1.01(0.09,8.44)

C

 
 

1.04(0.33,3.01)

1.79(0.63,4.85)

1.77(0.27,15.63)

D

KSS

A

   
 

1.13(0.18,2.11)

B

  
 

− 0.01(− 2.0,2.0)

− 1.14(− 3.3,0.96)

C

 
 

0.8(− 0.59,2.12)

− 0.33(− 1.7,0.92)

0.82(− 1.4,2.90)

D

FS

A

   
 

1.11(− 1.50,3.44)

B

  
 

1.61(− 5.49,8.40)

0.50(− 6.64,7.53)

C

 
 

1.90(− 2.10,5.90)

0.79(− 3.02,4.83)

0.29(− 6.40,7.20)

D

ROM

A

   
 

0.18(− 3.10,3.50)

B

  
 

0.30(− 9.7,10.26)

0.13(− 10.44,10.6)

C

 
 

− 2.96(− 7.44,1.70)

− 3.13(− 7.10,0.94)

− 3.26(− 14.10,7.86)

D

Satisfaction

A

   
 

0.99(0.51,1.98)

B

  
 

0.41(0.03,6.24)

0.41(0.03,5.71)

C

 
 

0.58(0.13,2.61)

0.58(0.16,2.21)

1.43(0.15,13.89)

D

  1. A: patellar resurfacing, B: patellar non-resurfacing, C: patellar resurfacing with denervation, D: patellar non-resurfacing with denervation
  2. RP reoperation, AKP anterior knee pain, KSS knee society score, FS function score, ROM range of motion. Italics were with statistically significant