Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of clinical outcomes that compare the Medial Pivot design (MP) with the Posterior-Stabilized design (PS) were controversial. The meta-analysis was performed to summarize existing evidence, aiming to determine whether MP was superior to PS prosthesis. METHODS: Search strategies followed the recommendations of the Cochrane collaboration. Electronic searches such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane were systematically searched for publications concerning medical pivot and posterior stabilized prosthesis from the inception date to April 2021. Authors also manually checked and retrieved a reference list of included publications for potential studies, which the electronic searches had not found. Two investigators independently searched, screened, and reviewed the full text of the article. Disagreements generated throughout the process were resolved by consensus, and if divergences remain, they were arbitrated by a third author. Subsequently, patients were divided into the MP and PS groups. RESULTS: This study included 18 articles, comprising a total of 2614 patients with a similar baseline. The results showed the PS group had a higher risk of the patellar clunk or crepitus. However, the theoretical advantages of MP prosthesis could not translate to the difference in knee function, clinical complications, revision rate and satisfaction. Similarly, the shape and mechanism of prostheses could not affect the implant position and postoperative alignment. CONCLUSIONS: The MP prosthesis can reduce the patellar clunk or crepitus rate. However, choices between the MP and PS prosthesis would not affect knee function, clinical complications, revision rate, patient satisfaction, implant position, and postoperative alignment.