Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2016 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 1

Mobile- versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial featuring 6-10-year follow-up

Pages
1–9
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, we conclude that the best design is the one with which the surgeon is most comfortable and most able to implant reproducibly.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of mobile- (MB) and fixed-bearing (FB) total knee arthroplasties (TKA).Methods: A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of MB and FB prostheses in 93 consecutive patients who underwent primary TKA for knee osteoarthritis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Mean follow-up of the patients was 100.9 months in the MB group (range: 78-121 months) and 93.7 months (range: 78-120 months) in the FB group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, we conclude that the best design is the one with which the surgeon is most comfortable and most able to implant reproducibly.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of mobile- (MB) and fixed-bearing (FB) total knee arthroplasties (TKA).Methods: A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of MB and FB prostheses in 93 consecutive patients who underwent primary TKA for knee osteoarthritis. Mean follow-up of the patients was 100.9 months in the MB group (range: 78-121 months) and 93.7 months (range: 78-120 months) in the FB group. The clinical results were graded according to the Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS) and the Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS). Secondary outcomes included pain, patellofemoral joint function, quality of life (QOL), and radiologic outcomes (Knee Society's roentgenographic evaluation system).Results: Although there was significant improvement in both groups, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to mean KSFS and radiologic outcomes. However, mean pain score of the MB group was significantly higher than that of the FB group (48.83±0.62 vs 47.39±0.86, respectively, p=0.011), and mean KSKS was significantly higher than that of the FB group (93.5±6.2 vs 89.7±6.9, respectively, p=0.007).Conclusion: TKA clinical results were satisfactory in both the MB and FB groups. KSKS and pain scores were significantly better in the MB than in the FB group. However, no differences were found in other assessments. Thus, we conclude that the best design is the one with which the surgeon is most comfortable and most able to implant reproducibly.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAKTIR, A., KARAASLAN, F., YURDAKUL, E., KARAOĞLU, S. (2016). Mobile- versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial featuring 6-10-year follow-up. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 1, 1–9. https://ajindex.com/articles/199866

References (9)

  1. Spencer SJ, Baird K, Young D, Tait GR. The Rotaglide mobile bearing knee arthroplasty A 10- to 13-year review from an independent centre. Knee 2012;19:20-3. Ritter MA. The Anatomical Graduated Component total knee replacement: a long-term evaluation with 20-year sur- vival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91:745-9.
  2. Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, Juszczak E, Carter S, White S, et al. A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single- blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:62-7.
  3. Ranawat CS, Luessenhop CP, Rodriguez JA. The press-fit condylar modular total knee system. Four-to-six-year re- sults with a posterior-cruciate-substituting design. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:342-8.
  4. Jacobs W, Anderson P, Limbeek J, Wymenga A. Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for total knee arthro- plasty for post-operative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Data- base Syst Rev 2004;2:CD003130. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roent- genographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:9-12.
  5. Dorey F, Amstutz HC. Survivorship analysis in the evalua- tion of joint replacement. J Arthroplasty 1986;1:63-9. Cohen J. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1992;1:98-101.
  6. Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Schaap GR, van Dijk CN. Less anterior knee pain with a mobile-bearing prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1959-65.
  7. Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS. Early outcome of TKA with a medial pivot fixed-bearing prosthesis is worse than with a PFC mobile-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:493-503.
  8. Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L. Com- parison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee ar- throplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:145-53. van der Voort P, Pijls BG, Nouta KA, Valstar ER, Jacobs WC, Nelissen RG. A systematic review and meta-regres- sion of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies. Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1209- 16. Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee ar- throplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1205-13.
  9. Wen Y, Liu D, Huang Y, Li B. A meta-analysis of the fixed- bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthro- plasty. Arch Orthop Tr