B L Fransen1, D C van Duijvenbode2, M J M Hoozemans2,3, B J Burger2. 1. CORAL - Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar, Department of Orthopaedics, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. b.l.fransen@mca.nl. 2. CORAL - Centre for Orthopaedic Research Alkmaar, Department of Orthopaedics, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 3. MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For years, numerous studies have been performed to determine whether mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (MB-TKA) or fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (FB-TKA) is the preferential design in total knee arthroplasty. Reviews and meta-analyses on this subject have focused on a relatively small number of randomised controlled trials, possibly missing important results of smaller studies. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of all literature comparing MB-TKA and FB-TKA in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed database. All studies that compared MB-TKA with FB-TKA and looked at one of four theorised advantages (insert wear, signs of loosening, survival rate of the prosthesis and clinical outcome) were included. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 258 articles, of which 127 were included after the first screening. The included studies consisted of 9 meta-analyses, 3 systematic reviews, 48 RCT's, 44 comparative studies, 10 reviews and 13 studies that examined patients who received bilateral TKA (one MB-TKA and one FB-TKA). Combining the results of all studies showed that almost all studies found no difference between MB-TKA and FB-TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Even when examining all different types of studies on MB-TKA and FB-TKA, the results of this review showed no difference in insert wear, risk of loosening, survivorship or clinical outcome. In daily practice, the choice between MB-TKA and FB-TKA should be based on the experience and judgment of the surgeon, since no clear differences are observed in the scientific literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: For years, numerous studies have been performed to determine whether mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (MB-TKA) or fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (FB-TKA) is the preferential design in total knee arthroplasty. Reviews and meta-analyses on this subject have focused on a relatively small number of randomised controlled trials, possibly missing important results of smaller studies. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of all literature comparing MB-TKA and FB-TKA in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed database. All studies that compared MB-TKA with FB-TKA and looked at one of four theorised advantages (insert wear, signs of loosening, survival rate of the prosthesis and clinical outcome) were included. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 258 articles, of which 127 were included after the first screening. The included studies consisted of 9 meta-analyses, 3 systematic reviews, 48 RCT's, 44 comparative studies, 10 reviews and 13 studies that examined patients who received bilateral TKA (one MB-TKA and one FB-TKA). Combining the results of all studies showed that almost all studies found no difference between MB-TKA and FB-TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Even when examining all different types of studies on MB-TKA and FB-TKA, the results of this review showed no difference in insert wear, risk of loosening, survivorship or clinical outcome. In daily practice, the choice between MB-TKA and FB-TKA should be based on the experience and judgment of the surgeon, since no clear differences are observed in the scientific literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fixed bearing; Mobile bearing; Review; Total knee arthroplasty
Authors: Douglas A Dennis; Richard D Komistek; Mohamed R Mahfouz; Brian D Haas; James B Stiehl Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Arthur W Zürcher; Kim van Hutten; Jaap Harlaar; Caroline B Terwee; G H Rob Albers; Ruud G Pöll Journal: Knee Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Giles R Scuderi; David R Hedden; John A Maltry; Steven M Traina; Mitchell B Sheinkop; Mark A Hartzband Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Stefan J M Breugem; Inger N Sierevelt; Matthias U Schafroth; Leendert Blankevoort; Gerard R Schaap; C Niek van Dijk Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 4.176
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
Authors: Laura Bragonzoni; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Marco Bontempi; Tommaso Roberti di Sarsina; Umberto Cardinale; Domenico Alesi; Francesco Iacono; Maria Pia Neri; Stefano Zaffagnini Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-10-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Peter L Lewis; Annette W-Dahl; Otto Robertsson; Michelle Lorimer; Heather A Prentice; Stephen E Graves; Elizabeth W Paxton Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.717