Is gap balancing superior to measured resection technique in total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

Arthroplasty

Table 4 Subgroup analysis of radiological outcomes

Radiological outcomes by study design	Groups (n)		Overall effect		P value	I²
Radiological outcomes by study design	GB	MR	Effect estimate	95% CI	P value	I²
Rotation of the femoral component	128	134	0.54°	−0.05-1.13°	0.073	46.0%
RCTs [15]	48	48	1.00°	0.031–1.969°	0.043	NE
Prospective cohort [8, 14]	80	86	0.27°	−0.470 -1.010°	0.475	57.0%
Post-operative value of mechanical axis	235	240	0.40°	0.10–0.71°	0.01	41.6%
RCTs [11, 18]	130	126	0.68°	0.26–1.11°	0.002	0.0%
Prospective cohort [8, 19]	105	114	0.11°	−0.32- 0.55°	0.607	18.2%
Risk of mechanical alignment outlier	174	155	0.350	0.19–0.63°	< 0.0001	0.0%
RCTs [11, 18]	130	126	0.375	0.202–0.696	0.002	0.0%
Prospective cohort [19]	57	66	0.193	0.024–1.556	0.122	NE
Joint line elevation	138	148	1.27 mm	1.64–1.96 mm	< 0.0001	0.0%
RCTs [13, 15]	81	82	1.319 mm	0.905–1.732 mm	< 0.0001	0.0%
Prospective cohort [19]	57	66	1.100 mm	0.285–1.915 mm	0.008	NE

GB Gap balancing, MR Measured resection, NE Not estimatable, Entries in italic were considered as statistically significant

ISSN: 2524-7948