Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1140 - 1148
1 Nov 2023
Liukkonen R Vaajala M Mattila VM Reito A

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the pooled prevalence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) and examine whether the risk of developing PTOA after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury has decreased in recent decades.

Methods

The PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from 1 January 1980 to 11 May 2022. Patient series, observational studies, and clinical trials having reported the prevalence of radiologically confirmed PTOA after ACL injury, with at least a ten-year follow-up, were included. All studies were analyzed simultaneously, and separate analyses of the operative and nonoperative knees were performed. The prevalence of PTOA was calculated separately for each study, and pooled prevalence was reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using either a fixed or random effects model. To examine the effect of the year of injury on the prevalence, a logit transformed meta-regression analysis was used with a maximum-likelihood estimator. Results from meta-regression analyses were reported with the unstandardized coefficient (β).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1449 - 1456
1 Sep 2021
Kazarian GS Lieberman EG Hansen EJ Nunley RM Barrack RL

Aims

The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence.