Literature DB >> 28210821

P.F.C Sigma® cruciate retaining fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty: a prospective comparative study with minimum 10-year follow-up.

O Riaz1, A Aqil2, G Sisodia2, G Chakrabarty2.   

Abstract

AIMS: To prospectively compare long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following a cruciate retaining fixed-bearing (FB) and a mobile-bearing (MB) primary total knee replacement (TKR).
METHODS: We prospectively reviewed 113 TKRs in 99 patients (14 bilateral) with a PFC sigma cruciate retaining rotating platform system, at an average follow-up of 11.1 years (range 10-12). Results were contrasted with those from 89 TKRs in 72 patients (17 bilateral) with a PFC sigma cruciate fixed-bearing prosthesis, at an average follow-up of 12.1 years (range 10-14.1). Outcomes collected included pre- and post-operative range of motion, Oxford Knee Scores, complications encountered, as well as radiographical assessments of polyethylene wear.
RESULTS: In the MB group, mean Oxford Knee Scores improved from 16 pre-operatively to 42 at final follow-up. The mean range of motion was 115° (75-130). In the FB group, mean Oxford Knee Scores improved from 16.2 pre-operatively to 42.5 at final follow-up. The mean range of motion was 111.2 (80-135) degrees at final follow-up.
CONCLUSION: We failed to elicit an objectively demonstrable clinical difference between the MB- and FB-implanted knees. Similarly, radiological benefits of the MB implants with regard to polyethylene wear were not evident at a minimum 10-year follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fixed-bearing; Long-term outcome; Mobile-bearing; Total knee replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28210821     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-017-1920-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  16 in total

1.  Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements.

Authors:  F F Buechel; F F Buechel; M J Pappas; J D'Alessio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Primary total knee arthroplasty using the P.F.C Sigma®-rotating platform cruciate retaining endoprosthesis--a 6 year follow up.

Authors:  H Bhatt; R Rambani; W White; G Chakrabarty
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Paolo Aglietti; Andrea Baldini; Roberto Buzzi; Domenico Lup; Lapo De Luca
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  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

5.  Survivorship analysis of cementless meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  L R Jordan; J L Olivo; P E Voorhorst
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The effect of conformity, thickness, and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement.

Authors:  D L Bartel; V L Bicknell; T M Wright
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Long-term comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim; Jun-Shik Kim; Jin-Woo Choe; Hyoung-Jin Kim
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  A J Price; J L Rees; D Beard; E Juszczak; S Carter; S White; R de Steiger; C A F Dodd; M Gibbons; P McLardy-Smith; J W Goodfellow; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-01

9.  The outcome of rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty with cement at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Jean-Noel A Argenson; Sebastien Parratte; Abdullah Ashour; Bertrand Saintmard; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised, clinical and radiological study with mid-term results at 7 years.

Authors:  A Lädermann; A Lübbeke; R Stern; N Riand; D Fritschy
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2008-03-10       Impact factor: 2.199

View more
  2 in total

1.  Minimum twelve-year follow-up of fixed- vs mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: Double blinded randomized trial.

Authors:  Cameron J Killen; Michael P Murphy; William J Hopkinson; Melvyn A Harrington; William H Adams; Harold W Rees
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-03-29

Review 2.  No difference between mobile and fixed bearing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Nicola Maffulli; Francesco Cuozzo; Marco Pilone; Karen Elsner; Jörg Eschweiler
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 4.114

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.