Literature DB >> 26037546

Higher forgotten joint score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

E Thienpont1, D Zorman2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative subjective outcome for fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by using the forgotten joint score (FJS-12), a new patient-reported outcome score of 12 questions evaluating the potential of a patient to forget about his operated joint. The hypothesis of this study was that a mobile-bearing TKA would have a higher level of forgotten joint than a fixed-bearing model of the same design.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 100 patients who underwent TKA at least 1 year [mean (SD) 18 (5) months] before with either a fixed-bearing (N = 50) or a mobile-bearing (N = 50) TKA from the same implant family. Clinical outcome was evaluated with the knee society score and patient-reported outcome with the forgotten joint score.
RESULTS: No difference was observed for demographics in between both study groups. The mean (SD) postoperative FJS-12 for the fixed-bearing TKA was 71 (28) compared to a mean (SD) of 56.5 (30) for the mobile-bearing TKA. DISCUSSION: The clinical relevance of the present retrospective study is that it shows for the first time a significant difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKA by using a new patient-reported outcome score. The hypothesis that mobile-bearing TKA would have a higher degree of forgotten joint than a fixed-bearing TKA could not be confirmed. A level I prospective study should be set up to objectivise these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fixed bearing; Forgotten joint score; Mobile bearing; Total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26037546     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3663-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  31 in total

1.  Development of a new Knee Society scoring system.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Giles R Scuderi; Adam C Brekke; Alla Sikorskii; James B Benjamin; Jess H Lonner; Priya Chadha; Daniel A Daylamani; W Norman Scott; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a mobile-bearing design in total knee replacement? A meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Y Zeng; B Shen; J Yang; Z K Zhou; P D Kang; F X Pei
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Gender-specific outcome after implantation of low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Authors:  Norbert Kastner; Birgit A Aigner; Tobias Meikl; Jörg Friesenbichler; Matthias Wolf; Mathias Glehr; Gerald Gruber; Andreas Leithner; Patrick Sadoghi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  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 6.  Quality of life: patients and doctors don't always agree: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  A J Janse; R J B J Gemke; C S P M Uiterwaal; I van der Tweel; J L L Kimpen; G Sinnema
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Different femorotibial contact points between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs do not show clinical impact.

Authors:  R A van Stralen; P J C Heesterbeek; A B Wymenga
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?

Authors:  Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  No differences in clinical outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing computer-assisted total knee arthroplasties and no correlations between navigation data and clinical scores.

Authors:  Carlos J Marques; Sandra Daniel; Anusch Sufi-Siavach; Frank Lampe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K Giesinger; D F Hamilton; B Jost; B Holzner; J M Giesinger
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 6.576

View more
  10 in total

1.  No difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in activities of daily living and pain: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Joicemar Tarouco Amaro; Gustavo Gonçalves Arliani; Diego Costa Astur; Pedro Debieux; Camila Cohen Kaleka; Moises Cohen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  No difference in joint awareness after mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  M G M Schotanus; P Pilot; R Vos; N P Kort
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-02-09

3.  Joint awareness after ACL reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12.

Authors:  Henrik Behrend; Vilijam Zdravkovic; Johannes M Giesinger; Karlmeinrad Giesinger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Clinical and radiological analysis of a personalized total knee arthroplasty system design.

Authors:  Francesco Benazzo; Matteo Ghiara; Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi; Emma Pruneri; Vivek Tiwari; Simone Perelli
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the 'Forgotten Joint' Score before and after joint replacement.

Authors:  E Thienpont; A Vanden Berghe; P E Schwab; J P Forthomme; O Cornu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Clinical outcome of increased flexion gap after total knee arthroplasty. Can controlled gap imbalance improve knee flexion?

Authors:  P Ismailidis; M S Kuster; B Jost; K Giesinger; H Behrend
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Does the medial pivot knee improve the clinical and radiographic outcome of total knee arthroplasty? A single centre study on two hundred and ninety seven patients.

Authors:  Giorgio Cacciola; Ivan De Martino; Federico De Meo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-12-21       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Patients undergoing staged bilateral knee arthroplasty are less aware of their kinematic aligned knee compared to their mechanical knee.

Authors:  Bar Ziv Yaron; Small Ilan; Keidan Tomer; Betner Eran; Agar Gabriel; Shohat Noam
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-01-20

9.  Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?

Authors:  Qunn Jid Lee; Wai Yee Esther Chang; Yiu Chung Wong
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2020-07-29

10.  Mini-midvastus versus medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty: difference in patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score.

Authors:  Wei Lin; Jinghui Niu; Yike Dai; Guangmin Yang; Ming Li; Fei Wang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 2.359

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.