Meta-Analysis
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
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included trials
Study IDImplant used
Sample size (knees)
Study designMean age (yr)
Follow-up (mo)BMI (kg/m2)
GSPCPGSPCPGSPCPGSPCP
Kim et al[14]Gender-specific CR- FlexStandard CR- Flex138138RCT71.271.23927.327.3
Kim et al[15]Gender-specific LPS-FlexStandard LPS-Flex8585RCT69.769.725.627.127.1
Tanavalee et al[16]Gender-specific LPS-FlexStandard LPS-Flex165149CCT7070.52423.423.5
Singh et al[17]Gender-specific LPS High-FlexStandard LPS-Flex100100RCT64682430.731.1
Song et al[18]Gender SolutionsStandard CR- Flex4646RCT68.868.831.526.826.8
Lionberger et al[19]Gender-specific CR or LPS-FlexStandard CR- Flex3939CCT67.968.31229.930
Thomsen et al[20]Gender Solutions high-FlexStandard LPS-Flex2222RCT66661329.329.3
Table 2 Designs and methodological quality summary
StudySequence generationAllocation concealmentAssessor blindingIncomplete outcomeSelective reporting
Kim et al[14]YesYesUnclearYesYes
Kim et al[15]YesYesYesYesYes
Tanavalee et al[16]NoNoNoYesYes
Singh et al[17]YesUnclearUnclearYesYes
Song et al[18]YesUnclearYesYesYes
Lionberger et al[19]NoNoNoYesYes
Thomsen et al[20]YesUnclearYesYesYes
Table 3 Clinical results: preoperative and postoperative range of motion, Hospital for Special Surgery scores
StudyPreoperative ROM
PPostoperative ROM
PPreoperative HSS
PPostoperative HSS
P
GSPCPGSPCPGSPCPGSPCP
Kim et al[14]127 (100-150)123 (80-150)NR124 (85-140)126 (85-140)NRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Kim et al[15]123 (85-150)120 (58-150)0.139126 (85-140)125 (80-140)0.73959.7 (37-58)59.1 (37-68)0.12091.2 (77-100)90.7 (84-100)0.252
Tanavalee et al[16]126125.6> 0.05134.1133.5> 0.05NRNRNRNRNRNR
Singh et al[17]111.7 ± 13.5110.5 ± 13.70.282122.8 ± 8.0119.9 ± 8.70.00755.7 ± 9.156.7 ± 9.00.21291.5 ± 4.891.9 ± 4.10.313
Song et al[18]120.4 ± 16.6121.8 ± 13.50.64131.1 ± 9.2133.7 ± 19.20.1657.5 ± 11.557.1 ± 12.10.88092.7 ± 8.092.1 ± 8.70.75
Lionberger et al[19]102.7 ± 9.5107.5 ± 11.50.048123.4 ± 9.8118.3 ± 9.70.023NRNRNRNRNRNR
Thomsen et al[20]NRNRNR125 (105-142)125 (105-139)0.82NRNRNRNRNRNR
Table 4 Clinical results: preoperative and postoperative Knee Society score
StudyPreoperative KSS clinical score
PPostoperative KSS clinical score
PPreoperative KSS function score
PPostoperative KSS function score
P
GSPCPGSPCPGSPCPGSPCP
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 ± 11.536.3 ± 13.40.11894.9 ± 4.795.8 ± 3.60.06137.6 ± 14.038.7 ± 10.20.25480.2 ± 10.679.9 ± 13.00.429
Table 5 Outcomes of complications comparing female-specific with conventional prostheses
ComplicationsIncidence
Odds ratio (95%CI)Overall effect(P value)I2(%)HeterogeneityP
GSPCP
Manipulation under anesthesia[16,17]0/2654/2490.19 (0.02-1.61)0.1300.97
Revisions[14,16]1/2932/2860.57 (0.07-4.34)0.5500.64
Anterior knee pain[17]5/504/501.28 (0.32-5.07)0.73NANA