Literature DB >> 14973854

Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiologic study.

Steven T Woolson1, Gregory D Northrop.   

Abstract

A consecutive series of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using either a mobile-bearing (MB) or a fixed-bearing (FB) implant were studied. Forty-four patients received 57 MB rotating platforms, and 40 patients received 45 FB posterior stabilized implants. At an average 41-month follow-up (range, 2-6 years), no significant differences were found between the groups with respect to Knee Society ratings or pain scores. Postoperative flexion was not different between the groups (116 degrees for MB and 118 degrees for FB). Three MB knees were revised for implant-related complications. There was no difference between these MB or FB knee implants clinically or radiographically at early follow-up. However, more patients with a MB knee required early revision for failure of rotating patellar or tibial polyethylene implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14973854     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2003.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  22 in total

1.  Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Shuichi Matsuda; Hideki Mizu-uchi; Shingo Fukagawa; Hiromasa Miura; Ken Okazaki; Hideo Matsuda; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The John Insall Award: no functional advantage of a mobile bearing posterior stabilized TKA.

Authors:  Ormonde M Mahoney; Tracy L Kinsey; Theresa J D'Errico; Jianhua Shen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses.

Authors:  D Biau; M M Mullins; T Judet; P Piriou
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2006-03-25       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Staged bilateral mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty in the same patients: a prospective comparison of a posterior-stabilized prosthesis.

Authors:  Masahiro Hasegawa; Akihiro Sudo; Atsumasa Uchida
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-11-20       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Two year follow-up comparing computer assisted versus freehand TKR on joint stability, muscular function and patients satisfaction.

Authors:  C Lüring; F Oczipka; L Perlick; M Tingart; J Grifka; H Bäthis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Two-year follow-up on joint stability and muscular function comparing rotating versus fixed bearing TKR.

Authors:  C Luring; H Bathis; F Oczipka; C Trepte; H Lufen; L Perlick; J Grifka
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2005-12-14       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Toby O Smith; Farshid Ejtehadi; Rachel Nichols; Leigh Davies; Simon T Donell; Caroline B Hing
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Functional outcome of PFC Sigma fixed and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Birgit Hanusch; Thai Nurn Lou; Gary Warriner; Anthony Hui; Paul Gregg
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-11-08       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Is there any superiority in the clinical outcome of mobile-bearing knee prosthesis designs compared to fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis designs in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint? A review of the literature.

Authors:  H Van der Bracht; G Van Maele; P Verdonk; K F Almqvist; R Verdonk; M Freeman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  A five to seven year follow-up comparing computer-assisted vs freehand TKR with regard to clinical parameters.

Authors:  C Lüring; M Kauper; H Bäthis; L Perlick; J Beckmann; J Grifka; M Tingart; B Rath
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.