Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research ›› 2011, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (48): 9055-9058.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2011.48.031

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of rotating platform prosthesis and fixed platform prosthesis applied in total knee replacement: A Meta analysis

Chen Yue-ping, Chen Liang, Luo Dong-fang, Gao Hui   

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Ruikang Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning  530011, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • Received:2011-07-14 Revised:2011-09-16 Online:2011-11-26 Published:2011-11-26
  • Contact: Chen Liang, Master, Attending physician, Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Ruikang Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530011, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • About author:Chen Yue-ping☆, Studying for doctorate, Associate chief physician, Associate professor, Master’s supervisor, Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Ruikang Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530011, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China chenyueping007@126.com

PDF

470

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Currently, whether rotating prosthesis is superior to fixed prosthesis is still unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of rotating platform prosthesis and fixed platform prosthesis applied in total knee replacement in order to analyze their different curative effects.
METHODS: Relative articles were obtained from Medline database, Embase database, and China Biology Medicine disc. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about rotating and fixed platform prosthesis in total knee replacement were selected and compared. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Cochrane’s random methodology. RevMan 5.1.2 software was used for data analysis, and GRADEpro version 3.2.2 software was used for evidence rating of the included studies.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Totally 764 cases form 10 RCTs were involved. Of which 381 cases with rotating prosthesis replacement were taken as experimental group and 383 cases with platform prosthesis replacement were control group. The methodological bias involved in the study was lower, and the curative effect was improved. The Meta-analysis results compared between the two groups showed that there was no significant difference in the knee scores, ranges of motion and postoperative complications, as well as overhaul rates. The results show that the evidence cannot prove that rotating platform prosthesis is better than fixed platform prosthesis. More high-quality RCTs are needed to verify this. However, no matter which type of prosthesis can achieve satisfactory clinical effect.

CLC Number: