Comparison of the Efficiency and Safety of Total Ankle Replacement and Ankle Arthrodesis in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

全踝关节置换术与踝关节融合术治疗骨关节炎的疗效和安全性比较:一项更新的系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

While osteoarthritis is a common degenerative disease, ankle osteoarthritis is a subdivision that has received little attention. Two effective ways to treat osteoarthritis of the ankle are total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle arthrodesis (AAD). Whether TAR or AAD is more beneficial for treatment is controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficiency (clinical outcome and patient satisfaction) and safety (complications and survival) of these two procedures. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed as a guideline for this study. Three electronic databases, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched up to May 2019, with no language restrictions. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies were identified. The outcomes included clinical outcome, patient satisfaction, complications, and survival. Review Manager (Revman) 5.3 software was used to conduct the data analysis. We only selected literature from the past 5 years (no earlier than 2015). Seven comparative studies were included. There were six cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of cohort studies, and The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist was chosen to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies. No significant difference was observed for efficiency and safety. Clinical outcome was included in five studies with four different scoring systems. Two of them used the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) questionnaire scores to assess the two procedures (mean difference, -4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.37-2.85; P = 0.24; I(2) = 1%). Patient satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40; P = 0.82; I(2) = 54%), complications (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.16-8.21; P = 0.89; I(2) = 84%), and survival (RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.33-11.08; P = 0.47; I(2) = 90%) showed no significant difference between the TAR group and the AAD group. This meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between TAR and AAD in clinical outcome, patient satisfaction, complications, and survival. This revealed that TAR and AAD could appear to have similar results in these aspects. Therefore, the present results are not sufficient to conclude which of these two methods is better. Further studies are needed to obtain more clues.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。