Literature DB >> 23138235

Risk of revision for fixed versus mobile-bearing primary total knee replacements.

Robert S Namba1, Maria C S Inacio, Elizabeth W Paxton, Christopher F Ake, Cunlin Wang, Thomas P Gross, Danica Marinac-Dabic, Art Sedrakyan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty prostheses were developed to reduce wear and revision rates; however, these benefits remain unproven. The purposes of this study were to compare the short-term survivorship and to determine risk factors for revision of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee replacements.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study of primary total knee arthroplasties performed from 2001 to 2009 was conducted with use of a community total joint replacement registry. Patient characteristics and procedure details were identified. Cox regression models were used. Bearing type was investigated as a risk factor for revision while adjusted for other risk factors such as age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, sex, race, diagnosis, bilateral procedures, cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized components, surgical approach, fixation, patellar resurfacing, hospital and surgeon volumes, and fellowship training.
RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 47,339 total knee arthroplasties, with 62.6% of the procedures in women. Fixed bearings were used in 41,908 knees (88.5%) and mobile bearings in 4830 (10.2%). Rotating-platform designs were used in all mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties (3112 had a Rotating-Platform Press-Fit Condylar posterior-stabilized design; 1053, a Low Contact Stress [LCS] design; and 665, a Rotating-Platform Press-Fit Condylar cruciate-retaining design). Patients who received fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems were older (mean age, 68.1 years) than those who received mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems (mean age, 62.2 years); the difference was significant (p < 0.001). Overall, 515 knees (1.1%) were revised for reasons other than infection. The survival rate was 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.4% to 98.0%) at 6.7 years. The adjusted risk of aseptic revision for the LCS total knee replacements was 2.01 times (95% CI, 1.41 to 2.86) higher than that for fixed-bearing total knee replacements (p < 0.001).There was no significant revision risk for the other mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems. There was no association with surgeon and hospital case volumes and the risk of revision total knee arthroplasty.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests the benefit of potential long-term wear reduction with the LCS implant may not be realized in a community-based setting, where a variety of surgical skills, surgical experience, and diverse patient demographic factors may affect early outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23138235     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  15 in total

1.  Unicompartmental arthritis in the aging athlete: osteotomy and beyond.

Authors:  Stephen F Johnstone; Michael J Tranovich; Dharmesh Vyas; Vonda J Wright
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2013-09

2.  International comparative evaluation of knee replacement with fixed or mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized prostheses.

Authors:  Stephen Graves; Art Sedrakyan; Valborg Baste; Terence J Gioe; Robert Namba; Olga Martínez Cruz; Susanna Stea; Elizabeth Paxton; Samprit Banerjee; Abby J Isaacs; Otto Robertsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  International comparative evaluation of knee replacement with fixed or mobile non-posterior-stabilized implants.

Authors:  Robert Namba; Stephen Graves; Otto Robertsson; Ove Furnes; Susanna Stea; Lluis Puig-Verdié; Daniel Hoeffel; Guy Cafri; Elizabeth Paxton; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 4.  Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data.

Authors:  Richard E Hughes; Aditi Batra; Brian R Hallstrom
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

5.  Superior long-term survival for fixed bearing compared with mobile bearing in ligament-balanced total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  P J C Heesterbeek; A H van Houten; J S Klenk; H Eijer; B Christen; A B Wymenga; A J Schuster
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  No clinical difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  O Bailey; K Ferguson; E Crawfurd; P James; P A May; S Brown; M Blyth; W J Leach
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-02-09       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  No differences between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  B L Fransen; D C van Duijvenbode; M J M Hoozemans; B J Burger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms.

Authors:  J Gallo; S B Goodman; Y T Konttinen; M A Wimmer; M Holinka
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 9.  Application of a Causal Discovery Algorithm to the Analysis of Arthroplasty Registry Data.

Authors:  Camden Cheek; Huiyong Zheng; Brian R Hallstrom; Richard E Hughes
Journal:  Biomed Eng Comput Biol       Date:  2018-02-22

Review 10.  Risk factors for revision of total knee arthroplasty: a scoping review.

Authors:  L L Jasper; C A Jones; J Mollins; S L Pohar; L A Beaupre
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.