Robert Namba1, Stephen Graves2, Otto Robertsson3, Ove Furnes4, Susanna Stea5, Lluis Puig-Verdié6, Daniel Hoeffel7, Guy Cafri8, Elizabeth Paxton8, Art Sedrakyan9. 1. 6670 Alton Parkway, Irvine CA 92618. 2. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Discipline of Public Health, MDP DX 650 511, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. 3. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Sciences, SUS/Lund University Hospital, 221 85 Lund, Sweden. 4. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Mollendalsbakken 11, N-5021 Bergen, Norway. 5. Register of the Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), c/o Medical Technology Laboratory, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 Bologna, Italy. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salud MAR, Passeig Maritim 25-27, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 7. Summit Orthopedics, 2090 Woodwinds Drive, St. Paul, MN 55125. 8. Surgical Outcomes & Analysis Department, Kaiser Permanente, 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 406, San Diego, CA 92108. 9. Weill Cornell Medical College, 402 East 67th Street, New York, NY 10065.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing total knee prostheses were designed to reduce wear and improve implant survivorship following total knee arthroplasty. However, the benefit of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty remains unproven. Both mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty implants are available in posterior-stabilized and non-posterior-stabilized designs. With the latter, the implant does not recreate the function of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) with a posterior-stabilizing cam mechanism. The purpose of the present study was to compare mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized devices with fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized devices used in total knee arthroplasty through a novel multinational study design. METHODS: Through the use of a distributed health data network, primary total knee arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis from 2001 to 2010 were identified from six national and regional total joint arthroplasty registries. Multivariate meta-analysis was performed with use of linear mixed models, with the primary outcome of interest being revision for any reason. Survival probabilities and their standard errors were extracted from each registry for each unique combination of the covariates. RESULTS: A total of 319,616 patients (60% female) underwent non-posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. A fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized design was used in 258,190 (81%) of the knees and a mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized design in 61,426 (19%) of the knees. Sixty-nine percent of the patients who received a fixed-bearing implant were over sixty-five years of age, compared with 63% of those who received a mobile-bearing implant. Mobile-bearing designs had a higher risk of revision, with a hazard ratio of 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.36 to 1.51; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Previous comparisons of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty outcomes have been inconclusive. The current study utilized an advanced, harmonized distributed analysis of six national and regional joint-replacement registries. To our knowledge, it is the largest analysis of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty to date. Mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized designs presented a greater risk of failure than was found for fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized designs. Caution should be used in the selection of the mobile-bearing non-posterior-stabilized design for total knee replacement.
BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing total knee prostheses were designed to reduce wear and improve implant survivorship following total knee arthroplasty. However, the benefit of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty remains unproven. Both mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty implants are available in posterior-stabilized and non-posterior-stabilized designs. With the latter, the implant does not recreate the function of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) with a posterior-stabilizing cam mechanism. The purpose of the present study was to compare mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized devices with fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized devices used in total knee arthroplasty through a novel multinational study design. METHODS: Through the use of a distributed health data network, primary total knee arthroplasties performed for osteoarthritis from 2001 to 2010 were identified from six national and regional total joint arthroplasty registries. Multivariate meta-analysis was performed with use of linear mixed models, with the primary outcome of interest being revision for any reason. Survival probabilities and their standard errors were extracted from each registry for each unique combination of the covariates. RESULTS: A total of 319,616 patients (60% female) underwent non-posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. A fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized design was used in 258,190 (81%) of the knees and a mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized design in 61,426 (19%) of the knees. Sixty-nine percent of the patients who received a fixed-bearing implant were over sixty-five years of age, compared with 63% of those who received a mobile-bearing implant. Mobile-bearing designs had a higher risk of revision, with a hazard ratio of 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.36 to 1.51; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Previous comparisons of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty outcomes have been inconclusive. The current study utilized an advanced, harmonized distributed analysis of six national and regional joint-replacement registries. To our knowledge, it is the largest analysis of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty to date. Mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized designs presented a greater risk of failure than was found for fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized designs. Caution should be used in the selection of the mobile-bearing non-posterior-stabilized design for total knee replacement.
Authors: Judith C Maro; Richard Platt; John H Holmes; Brian L Strom; Sean Hennessy; Ross Lazarus; Jeffrey S Brown Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Terence J Gioe; Jason Glynn; Jonathan Sembrano; Kathleen Suthers; Edward R G Santos; Jasvinder Singh Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Art Sedrakyan; Elizabeth Paxton; Stephen Graves; Rebecca Love; Danica Marinac-Dabic Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Hannah A Wilson; Rob Middleton; Simon G F Abram; Stephanie Smith; Abtin Alvand; William F Jackson; Nicholas Bottomley; Sally Hopewell; Andrew J Price Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-02-21