Similar TKA designs with differences in clinical outcome: a randomized, controlled trial of 77 knees with a mean follow-up of 6 years

Fragility Index as a Measure of Randomized Clinical Trial Quality in Adult Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background

The Fragility Index (FI) and Reverse Fragility Index are powerful tools to supplement the P value in evaluation of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. These metrics are defined as the number of patients needed to change the significance level of an outcome. The purpose of this study was to calculate these metrics for published RCTs in total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Methods

We performed a systematic review of RCTs in TJA over the last decade. For each study, we calculated the FI (for statistically significant outcomes) or Reverse Fragility Index (for nonstatistically significant outcomes) for all dichotomous, categorical outcomes. We also used the Pearson correlation coefficient to evaluate publication-level variables.

Results

We included 104 studies with 473 outcomes; 92 were significant, and 381 were nonstatistically significant. The median FI was 6 overall and 4 and 7 for significant and nonsignificant outcomes, respectively. There was a positive correlation between FI and sample size (R = 0.14, P = .002) and between FI and P values (R = 0.197, P = .000012).

Conclusions

This study is the largest evaluation of FI in orthopedics literature to date. We found a median FI that was comparable to or higher than FIs calculated in other orthopedic subspecialties. Although the mean and median FIs were greater than the 2 recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines to demonstrate strong evidence, a large percentage of studies have an FI < 2. This suggests that the TJA literature is on par or slightly better than other subspecialties, but improvements must be made.

Level of Evidence

Level I; Systematic Review.

Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials in Total Knee Arthroplasty (47,675 Patients): What Have We Learnt?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in primary total knee arthroplasty summarizing the available high-quality evidence.

METHODS

Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. We excluded nonrandomized trials, trials on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or revision surgery, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Trials that met our inclusion criteria were assessed using a binary outcome measure of whether they reported statistically significant findings. These were then classified according to the intervention groups (surgical approach, tourniquet use, design, etc.).

RESULTS

Four hundred and three RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included. The total number of patients in those 403 RCTs was 47,675. Only 33 RCTs (8.2%) reported significant differences between the intervention and the control groups. The trials were grouped into surgical approach 34, tourniquet 31, minimally invasive surgery 13, patient specific instrumentation 30, knee design 37, fixation 27, mobile bearing 47, navigation 50, polyethylene 19, technique 27, patella resurfacing 26, drain 19, closure 16, and others 27 RCTs.

CONCLUSION

For the vast majority of patients, a standard conventional total knee arthroplasty with a surgical approach familiar to the surgeon using standard well-established components, with or without tourniquet, without surgical drain leads to satisfactory long-term clinical outcomes.