High-flexion vs conventional prostheses total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

Whether high-flexion prostheses are superior to conventional prostheses after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of these 2 different designs. After a comprehensive search, 11 trials with 1204 knees were eligible for data extraction and pooled analysis. The results demonstrated that there were no differences in range of motion of high-flexion posterior-stabilized vs standard posterior-stabilized TKA (weighted mean improvement, 0.93°; 95% confidence intervals, -0.75° to 2.60°; P = .28), range of motion of high-flexion cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-retaining TKA (2.06°; 0.06°-4.17°; P = .06), weight-bearing flexion (2.05°; 0.99°-5.08°; P = .19), Knee Society Scores (1.59 points; 0.42-3.60 points; P = .12), and Hospital for Special Surgery Scores (0.84 points; 0.37-2.04 points; P = .17) with at least 1-year follow-up. No infection, loosening, and osteolysis were found. The current evidences cannot confirm that high-flexion prostheses are superior to conventional prostheses.