Patient Reported and Structural Outcomes of Knee Joint Distraction versus High Tibial Osteotomy and Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint condition with significant global prevalence, often resulting from inflammatory joint processes, trauma, occupational stress, and obesity. While total knee arthroplasty (TKA) effectively alleviates pain and restores function, its limited lifespan and increased revision risk in younger patients necessitate alternative joint-preserving strategies. Emerging evidence highlights the potential of approaches such as Knee Joint Distraction (KJD), High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO), platelet-rich plasma therapy, and radiofrequency ablation in managing knee OA. These non-invasive and joint-preserving interventions have demonstrated efficacy in reducing OA-related pain and improving patient outcomes. Material and Methods: This study evaluated four comparative studies focusing on KJD vs HTO and TKA in the treatment of severe knee OA. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using validated tools, including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Structural outcomes were quantified via Joint Space Width (JSW), an indicator of cartilage preservation. Data were analysed using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5, with Cochrane's Q test applied to evaluate heterogeneity. Results were summarised using Forest plots, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between KJD vs. HTO and TKA across all measured outcomes. HTO and TKA demonstrated superior improvements in WOMAC, KOOS, ICOAP, VAS, EQ-5D, SF-36, and JSW. Despite these statistically significant differences, the mean values were comparable, suggesting KJD's non-inferiority as a joint-preserving alternative. The efficacy of non-invasive modalities in alleviating knee OA symptoms further strengthens the argument for exploring less invasive, cost-effective options for managing this condition. Conclusion: Knee Joint Distraction emerges as a promising joint-preserving intervention, offering comparable pain relief and functional improvement to HTO and TKA in the management of severe knee OA. While HTO and TKA showed marginally superior outcomes, KJD remains a viable alternative for younger patients or those seeking to delay TKA. Incorporating adjunctive treatments such as platelet-rich plasma therapy or radiofrequency ablation may further enhance outcomes, paving the way for multimodal and individualised approaches to knee OA management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".