Key result
Perioperative ARBs show no benefit over no ARBs for postoperative knee range of motion.
Why the study?
Do perioperative angiotensin II receptor blockers improve postoperative knee range of motion or reduce rates of manipulation under anesthesia and revision in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,163,919)
Do perioperative angiotensin II receptor blockers improve postoperative knee range of motion or reduce rates of manipulation under anesthesia and revision in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty?
Perioperative use of angiotensin II receptor blockers does not improve postoperative knee range of motion or reduce the need for manipulation under anesthesia or revision following total knee arthroplasty.
No support for perioperative ARBs to improve post-TKA knee ROM; confirms lack of anti-fibrotic benefit in large meta-analysis.
Background Arthrofibrosis represents a source of patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) as anti-fibrotic agents in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods The Medline, Embase and Cochrane library databases were systematically reviewed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The outcome measures of interest were postoperative knee range of motion (ROM), rates of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and revision rates. Results Overall, 7 studies were included in this review. In total, 126,710 patients received perioperative ARBs and 1,037,209 patients did not receive perioperative ARBs while undergoing TKA. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative knee ROM between the ARB cohort and the non-ARB cohort; SMD = -0.089 (95% CI; -0.354, 0.1751; P = 0.5086). There was no difference in the rates of postoperative MUA between the ARB cohort and the non-ARB cohort; OR = 1.0408 (95% CI; 0.6408, 1.6715; P = 0.8370). There was no difference in the revision rates between the ARB cohort and the non-ARB cohort; OR = 0.7133 (95% CI; 0.2249, 2.2621; P = 0.3349). Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the utilization of perioperative ARBs were not associated with superior postoperative knee ROM nor lower rates of MUA in patients undergoing TKA. Additionally, no difference in revision TKA rates existed between patients in the ARB cohort compared to the control cohort. Based on the current available data, it is the author’s current recommendation that perioperative ARB usage is not indicated in the setting of TKA for the prevention of arthrofibrosis. However, this analysis should be interpreted in light of the low level of evidence and under-reporting of data of the included studies. Thus, higher-level evidence, prospective, comparative studies should be conducted to definitively identify if perioperative ARBs can be utilized as effective anti-fibrotic agents in the setting of TKA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Butler et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Total knee arthroplasty (n=1,163,919). Perioperative angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) vs. No perioperative ARBs was evaluated on Postoperative knee range of motion (ROM) (SMD -0.089, 95% CI -0.354, 0.1751, p=0.5086). Perioperative angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with a significant difference in postoperative knee range of motion compared to no ARBs (SMD -0.089; 95% CI -0.354 to 0.1751; P=0.5086).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: