Zhan-dong Bo1, Liang Liao1, Jin-min Zhao2, Qing-jun Wei1, Xiao-fei Ding1, Biao Yang1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Trauma and Hand Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6, Shuang Yong Road, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Province, China. 2. Department of Orthopedic Trauma and Hand Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6, Shuang Yong Road, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Province, China. Electronic address: zhaojinmin@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare outcomes between mobile-bearing (MB) and fixed-bearing (FB) in bilateral total knee replacements. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials of bilateral total knee arthroplasty with one of each design implanted were identified. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified with a total of 807 patients and 1614 knees. All RCTs were of high quality with a low risk of bias. No statistical difference was found between MB and FB at 2- to 5-year follow-up in terms of America Knee Society score (WMD: -1.29, 95% CI: -5.65 to 3.06), pain score (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI: -10.45 to 3.93), range of motion (WMD: -4.16, 95% CI: -9.97 to 1.66), reoperation (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.28 to 3.60), and radiolucent lines (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.70 to 3.24). The results were similar at 1-, 5- to 8-, or >8-year follow-up. Patient's satisfaction (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.34), and complication (≤2-year, RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.04; >2-year, RR: 1.0, 95% CI=0.73 to 1.38) also showed no difference between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis we are unable to detect the superiority of MB as compared to FB. More randomized trials with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate these two kinds of prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. Crown
BACKGROUND: To compare outcomes between mobile-bearing (MB) and fixed-bearing (FB) in bilateral total knee replacements. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials of bilateral total knee arthroplasty with one of each design implanted were identified. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified with a total of 807 patients and 1614 knees. All RCTs were of high quality with a low risk of bias. No statistical difference was found between MB and FB at 2- to 5-year follow-up in terms of America Knee Society score (WMD: -1.29, 95% CI: -5.65 to 3.06), pain score (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI: -10.45 to 3.93), range of motion (WMD: -4.16, 95% CI: -9.97 to 1.66), reoperation (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.28 to 3.60), and radiolucent lines (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.70 to 3.24). The results were similar at 1-, 5- to 8-, or >8-year follow-up. Patient's satisfaction (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.34), and complication (≤2-year, RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.04; >2-year, RR: 1.0, 95% CI=0.73 to 1.38) also showed no difference between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis we are unable to detect the superiority of MB as compared to FB. More randomized trials with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate these two kinds of prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. Crown
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
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
Authors: Ulrike Wittig; Maximilian Moshammer; Ines Vielgut; Georg Hauer; Patrick Reinbacher; Andreas Leithner; Patrick Sadoghi Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 3.067