Patellar resurfacing in knee arthroplasty: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Revision rates associated with different patellar resurfacing approaches, (%)¹

Ref.	Routine resurfacing	Selective resurfacing	Non-resurfacing
Smith et al[2] (2015)	4.2	4.8	6.5
Khan et al[19] (2016)	3.5	4.0	5.8
Delanois et al[15] (2017)	5.1	5.5	7.3
Yi et al[5] (2015)	4.8	5.2	6.9
Li et al[20] (2019)	3.9	4.4	6.1

¹The table shows that across all five studies, routine resurfacing consistently has the lowest revision rates compared to selective resurfacing and non-resurfacing. Selective resurfacing generally has a moderate revision rate, while non-resurfacing shows the highest revision rates in all studies. These findings suggest that routine patellar resurfacing may lead to better long-term outcomes in terms of fewer revision surgeries needed, compared to selective or non-resurfacing strategies.

Table 2 Incidence rates of patellar resurfacing across different registries, (%)¹

Registry	Routine resurfacing	Selective resurfacing	Non-resurfacing
AOANJRR (2022)	80	15	5
NJR (2021)	70	20	10
DKR (2023)	85	10	5
NZJR (2022)	75	20	5
SHAR (2021)	90	5	5

¹The table demonstrates that routine resurfacing is the most common approach in all the listed registries, though the percentage varies from 70% to 90%. Selective resurfacing is the next most common approach, ranging from 5% to 20%. Non-resurfacing is the least common strategy, with percentages ranging from 5% to 10%. These variations reflect differing clinical practices and preferences in managing the patella during knee arthroplasty in different countries.

AOANJRR: Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry; DKR: Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry; NZJR: New Zealand Joint Registry; SHAR: Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Table 3 Patient satisfaction scores across resurfacing groups based on functional knee scores¹

Resurfacing group	Knee score type	mean ± SD (score)
Routine resurfacing	Functionality	85.2 ± 3.4
	Pain Relief	86.5 ± 3.1
	Stability	83.9 ± 3.6
Selective resurfacing	Functionality	83.7 ± 4.1
	Pain Relief	84.2 ± 4.3
	Stability	82.5 ± 3.9
Non-resurfacing	Functionality	82.5 ± 3.9
	Pain Relief	81.3 ± 3.8
	Stability	83.1 ± 3.7

¹This table delineates patient satisfaction scores across different resurfacing groups based on functional knee scores. Each resurfacing group is further divided into sections representing different types of knee scores, including functionality, pain relief, and stability. Mean scores with their respective SD are provided for each category.