SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2015 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4

Reduced patellofemoral and walking pain with mobile-bearing vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacements: a mid-term prospective analytic study

Jose Luis PAIS BRITO
Pages
375–381
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)

With regards to the patients' ability to walk, there were differences at 1 year (p=0.020) and at 5 years (p=0.021) in favor of MB implants.Conclusion: At a mean follow-up of 5 years, significant differences were observed in the MB prosthesis in terms of postoperative pain, ability to ascend/descend stairs, and patellofemoral pain

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Total knee replacement (TKR) is the standard treatment for advanced stage knee osteoarthritis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The introduction of the mobile-bearing (MB) design has given rise to a series of theoretical advantages compared to fixed-bearing (FB) implants, although current literature does not reveal significant differences between the designs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:With regards to the patients' ability to walk, there were differences at 1 year (p=0.020) and at 5 years (p=0.021) in favor of MB implants.Conclusion: At a mean follow-up of 5 years, significant differences were observed in the MB prosthesis in terms of postoperative pain, ability to ascend/descend stairs, and patellofemoral pain
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Total knee replacement (TKR) is the standard treatment for advanced stage knee osteoarthritis. The introduction of the mobile-bearing (MB) design has given rise to a series of theoretical advantages compared to fixed-bearing (FB) implants, although current literature does not reveal significant differences between the designs. The aim of this study was to estimate the clinical results of 2 cemented total knee prosthetic designs: an MB and an FB design.Methods: A series of patients with similar clinical and radiographic characteristics were treated consecutively with 100 FB followed by 94 MB implants. Patients were evaluated radiographically and clinically.Results: Statistically significant differences were found in terms of pain at 5 years in favor of MB prostheses (p=0.006). The "pain on ascending/descending stairs" category on the KSS score showed improvement at 5 years for the MB design (p=0.003). MB implants showed better results in terms of ability to ascend/descend stairs at five years (p=0.002). With regards to the patients' ability to walk, there were differences at 1 year (p=0.020) and at 5 years (p=0.021) in favor of MB implants.Conclusion: At a mean follow-up of 5 years, significant differences were observed in the MB prosthesis in terms of postoperative pain, ability to ascend/descend stairs, and patellofemoral pain

🔖

Cite This Article

BRITO, J. L. P. (2015). Reduced patellofemoral and walking pain with mobile-bearing vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacements: a mid-term prospective analytic study. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4, 375–381. https://ajindex.com/articles/353983

References (11)

  1. 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.
  2. Baldini A, Scuderi GR, Aglietti P, Chalnick D, Insall JN. Flexion-extension gap changes during total knee arthro- plasty: effect of posterior cruciate ligament and posterior osteophytes removal. J Knee Surg 2004;17:69-72.
  3. Beard DJ, Pandit H, Price AJ, Butler-Manuel PA, Dodd CA, Murray DW, et al. Introduction of a new mobile-bear- ing total knee prosthesis: minimum three year follow-up of an RCT comparing it with a fixed-bearing device. Knee 2007;14:448-51.
  4. Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran EK, Shukla S, Bijjawara M. A comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:2290-6.
  5. Biau D, Mullins MM, Judet T, Piriou P. Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term compara- tive clinical results of 216 prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006;14:927-33.
  6. Bistolfi A, Massazza G, Lee GC, Deledda D, Berchialla P, Crova M. Comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 116 months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:83. Bolanos AA, Colizza WA, McCann PD, Gotlin RS, Wootten ME, Kahn BA, et al. A comparison of isokinetic strength testing and gait analysis in patients with posterior cruciate-retaining and substituting knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 1998;13:906-15.
  7. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. Long-term survivorship analysis of cruciate-sparing versus cruciate-sacrificing knee pros- theses using meniscal bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;260:162-9. Buechel FF. Mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty: rotation is our salvation J Arthroplasty 2004;19(4 Suppl 1):27-30.
  8. Colizza WA, Insall JN, Scuderi GR. The posterior sta- bilized total knee prosthesis. Assessment of polyethylene damage and osteolysis after a ten-year-minimum follow- up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:1713-20.
  9. Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, Scuderi GR, Font- Rodriguez D. Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:575-82.
  10. Firestone TP, Teeny SM, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS. The clinical and roentgenographic results of cementless porous-coated patellar fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;273:184-9.
  11. Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;34