Table 5.
TKA with obese BMI studies
| Study | LOE | MINORS | Number of knees | Mean age, years (range) | Mean followup, years (range) | Revision because of wear (%) | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naziri et al. [39] | III | 9 | 99 | 60 (43–74) | 5 (3–7) | 6/2* | No significant difference in implant survivorship in patients > 50 kg/m2 compared with < 30 kg/m2 (6% superobese revision rate vs. 2% nonobese revision rate) |
| Foran et al. [11] | III | 8 | 27 | 62 (36–78) | 15 (7–18) | 7.4 | Obese patients had 3 times higher revision rates (p > 0.05) |
| Griffin et al. [13] | III | 7 | 73 | 68 (46–82) | 11 (10–12) | 7.3 | Similar overall rates of loosening and wear between obese and nonobese patients (all revisions were in nonobese group) |
| Mont et al. [36] | III | 7 | 50 | 61 (30–74) | 7 (2–11) | 8/4* | Weight as an independent factor should not compromise the results of TKA. (8% obese vs. 4% control) |
| Krushell & Fingeroth [27] | IV | 7 | 39 | 67 (4–81) | NR (5 to NR) | 5.1 | No statistically significant difference was identified between the obese and nonobese patients regarding radiolucencies |
MINORS = Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies; LOE = level of evidence; NR = not reported.
* Revision rates for patients with a BMI > 50 kg/m2 (6%) compared with < 30 kg/m2 (2%).