Literature DB >> 32399616

No difference in patient satisfaction after mobile bearing or fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Yvette Pronk1, Angela Anna Maria Paters2, Justus-Martijn Brinkman3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has excellent survival rates using one of the two implant designs: mobile bearing (MB) or fixed bearing (FB). There is a lack of studies comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of both implants. This study aimed to document and compare PROs of MB UKA to FB UKA at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery.
METHODS: A single high-volume surgeon, retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data of two groups of UKA patients, with a MB (n = 66) or FB (n = 97) implant. Primary outcome was patient satisfaction (0-10; NRS). Secondary outcomes were pain at rest (NRS), pain during activity (NRS), function (OKS, KOOS-PS), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), anchor pain, anchor function and anchor recovery. PROs were collected 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The complication rate and revision rate within one year after surgery were recorded.
RESULTS: For the MB group, the median NRS satisfaction score was 9.0 (8.0-10.0) compared to 9.0 (8.0-9.5) for the FB group at 6 months (p = 0.620). Similar scores were found at 12 and 24 months; both MB 9.0 (8.0-10.0) and FB 9.0 (8.0-10.0) (p = 0.556 and p = 0.522, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between MB and FB groups in all secondary outcomes postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: Medial UKA performed by a high-volume surgeon, using a MB or a FB implant, results in excellent patient satisfaction, pain relief, functional improvement and quality of life improvement at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The recommendation and use of one over the other is not justified based on the outcomes in the current study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  High-volume; Patient reported outcome measures; Patient satisfaction; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Unicondylar knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32399616     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06053-x

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


  1 in total

1.  A Comparison of Mobile- and Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties in the Treatment of Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 1,861 Patients.

Authors:  Fei Huang; Dan Wu; Jun Chang; Chi Zhang; Kunpeng Qin; Faxue Liao; Zongsheng Yin
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 2.757

  1 in total
  4 in total

1.  Mobile bearing versus fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement: an independent two center matched-pairs analysis.

Authors:  Mustafa Hariri; Georg Hauer; Maria Smolle; Patrick Sadoghi; Andreas Leithner; Benjamin Panzram; Christian Merle; Tobias Renkawitz; Tilman Walker
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 2.928

Review 2.  Mobile Bearing versus Fixed Bearing for Unicompartmental Arthroplasty in Monocompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Nicola Maffulli; Francesco Cuozzo; Karen Elsner; Frank Hildebrand; Jörg Eschweiler; Arne Driessen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  More Anterior in vivo Contact Position in Patients With Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty During Daily Activities Than in vitro Wear Simulator.

Authors:  Huiyong Dai; Nan Zheng; Diyang Zou; Zhemin Zhu; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Qi Wang
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-05-20

4.  Wear Morphology on the Surfaces of CoCrMo Unicompartmental Knee Joint Endoprostheses as Elements of Metal-Metal Friction Nodes.

Authors:  Arkadiusz Szarek; Grzegorz Stradomski; Justyna Łukomska-Szarek; Dariusz Rydz; Wojciech Wolański; Kamil Joszko
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.623

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.