Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Meta-Anal. Nov 26, 2014; 2(4): 221-227
Published online Nov 26, 2014. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v2.i4.221
Published online Nov 26, 2014. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v2.i4.221
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included trials
Study ID | Implant used | Sample size (knees) | Study design | Mean age (yr) | Follow-up (mo) | BMI (kg/m2) | ||||
GSP | CP | GSP | CP | GSP | CP | GSP | CP | |||
Kim et al[14] | Gender-specific CR- Flex | Standard CR- Flex | 138 | 138 | RCT | 71.2 | 71.2 | 39 | 27.3 | 27.3 |
Kim et al[15] | Gender-specific LPS-Flex | Standard LPS-Flex | 85 | 85 | RCT | 69.7 | 69.7 | 25.6 | 27.1 | 27.1 |
Tanavalee et al[16] | Gender-specific LPS-Flex | Standard LPS-Flex | 165 | 149 | CCT | 70 | 70.5 | 24 | 23.4 | 23.5 |
Singh et al[17] | Gender-specific LPS High-Flex | Standard LPS-Flex | 100 | 100 | RCT | 64 | 68 | 24 | 30.7 | 31.1 |
Song et al[18] | Gender Solutions | Standard CR- Flex | 46 | 46 | RCT | 68.8 | 68.8 | 31.5 | 26.8 | 26.8 |
Lionberger et al[19] | Gender-specific CR or LPS-Flex | Standard CR- Flex | 39 | 39 | CCT | 67.9 | 68.3 | 12 | 29.9 | 30 |
Thomsen et al[20] | Gender Solutions high-Flex | Standard LPS-Flex | 22 | 22 | RCT | 66 | 66 | 13 | 29.3 | 29.3 |
Table 2 Designs and methodological quality summary
Study | Sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Assessor blinding | Incomplete outcome | Selective reporting |
Kim et al[14] | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes |
Kim et al[15] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Tanavalee et al[16] | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Singh et al[17] | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes |
Song et al[18] | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Lionberger et al[19] | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Thomsen et al[20] | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Table 3 Clinical results: preoperative and postoperative range of motion, Hospital for Special Surgery scores
Study | Preoperative ROM | P | Postoperative ROM | P | Preoperative HSS | P | Postoperative HSS | P | ||||
GSP | CP | GSP | CP | GSP | CP | GSP | CP | |||||
Kim et al[14] | 127 (100-150) | 123 (80-150) | NR | 124 (85-140) | 126 (85-140) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Kim et al[15] | 123 (85-150) | 120 (58-150) | 0.139 | 126 (85-140) | 125 (80-140) | 0.739 | 59.7 (37-58) | 59.1 (37-68) | 0.120 | 91.2 (77-100) | 90.7 (84-100) | 0.252 |
Tanavalee et al[16] | 126 | 125.6 | > 0.05 | 134.1 | 133.5 | > 0.05 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Singh et al[17] | 111.7 ± 13.5 | 110.5 ± 13.7 | 0.282 | 122.8 ± 8.0 | 119.9 ± 8.7 | 0.007 | 55.7 ± 9.1 | 56.7 ± 9.0 | 0.212 | 91.5 ± 4.8 | 91.9 ± 4.1 | 0.313 |
Song et al[18] | 120.4 ± 16.6 | 121.8 ± 13.5 | 0.64 | 131.1 ± 9.2 | 133.7 ± 19.2 | 0.16 | 57.5 ± 11.5 | 57.1 ± 12.1 | 0.880 | 92.7 ± 8.0 | 92.1 ± 8.7 | 0.75 |
Lionberger et al[19] | 102.7 ± 9.5 | 107.5 ± 11.5 | 0.048 | 123.4 ± 9.8 | 118.3 ± 9.7 | 0.023 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Thomsen et al[20] | NR | NR | NR | 125 (105-142) | 125 (105-139) | 0.82 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Table 4 Clinical results: preoperative and postoperative Knee Society score
Study | Preoperative KSS clinical score | P | Postoperative KSS clinical score | P | Preoperative KSS function score | P | Postoperative KSS function score | P | ||||
GSP | CP | GSP | CP | GSP | CP | GSP | CP | |||||
Kim et al[14] | 39.8 (10-70) | 35.3 (0-50) | 0.149 | 93 (70-100) | 94 (70-100) | 0.69 | 44.2 (20-70) | 44.2 (20-70) | 1.000 | 84 (60-100) | 83 (60-100) | 0.322 |
Kim et al[15] | 34.4 (7-62) | 31.2 (0-55) | 0.145 | 96.5 (83-100) | 95.5 (81-100) | 0.424 | 48.3 (20-80) | 47.9 (20-80) | 0.320 | 84.8 (60-100) | 84.8 (60-100) | NR |
Tanavalee et al[16] | 34.3 | 34.7 | > 0.05 | 92.1 | 92.9 | > 0.05 | 32.2 | 31.8 | > 0.05 | 89.7 | 89.5 | > 0.05 |
Singh et al[17] | 34.2 ± 11.5 | 36.3 ± 13.4 | 0.118 | 94.9 ± 4.7 | 95.8 ± 3.6 | 0.061 | 37.6 ± 14.0 | 38.7 ± 10.2 | 0.254 | 80.2 ± 10.6 | 79.9 ± 13.0 | 0.429 |
Table 5 Outcomes of complications comparing female-specific with conventional prostheses
-
Citation: Rong GX, Huang L, Gui BJ, Xu AM, Zhang JL, Wang SS. Female-specific
vs conventional knee prostheses after total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2014; 2(4): 221-227 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v2/i4/221.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v2.i4.221