PurposeThe theoretical advantages of mobile-bearing (MB) designs over the conventional fixed bearings (FBs) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been proved yet through clinical studies. The aim of the study was to test whether the MB design has advantages in terms of better clinical outcomes when compared to FB. Furthermore, the relationships between intra-operative obtained implant positioning data and the clinical scores were analysed.MethodsA total of 99 patients were randomized into the FB or the MB group. All patients received the same posterior cruciate retaining implants and were operated with the use of a computer-assisted navigation system. The clinical outcomes of both groups were compared pre-operatively, at 1 year, and at a mean follow-up time of 4 years after surgery.ResultsThe MB implants showed no advantages over the FB when comparing the Knee Society Scores, the Oxford Score, the range of movement (ROM) and pain intensity of the patients in both groups at 1 and 4 years after surgery. There were no relationships between the computer navigation data and the clinical scores.ConclusionsIn view of the 4-year results, there is no evidence to support the recommendation of one design over the other in terms of better clinical outcome scores, higher ROM or lower pain rates. Long-term follow-up results may be necessary, including survival rates. Further research comparing different TKA designs should also include standardized performance-based tests.Level of evidenceProspective study (Randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power to detect differences), Level I.

Background:The mobile bearing designs have not yet been shown to improve clinical outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this prospective randomized study, we compared the short-term clinical results of a mobile bearing implant with those of the fixed bearing version of the same implant.Methods:We randomized 100 knees into two double-blind groups who received either the fixed (FB, 52 knees) or the mobile bearing (MB, 48 knees) version of the same implant. We used navigation to standardize the surgical technique. For up to one year, we recorded the Knee Society (KSS) and Oxford (OXF) scores. We performed an exploratory analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the influence of baseline scores as covariate and the extent of improvement in clinical outcome over time.Results:After one year, we did not detect any statistically significant difference between the two groups. The KSS scores differed by 2 points, the OXF scores by 1.1 points.Conclusion:Even with identical geometry of implant surfaces and a navigated surgical technique, first-year results do not support a preference for either a fixed or a mobile design.

AimsGiant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is histologically defined as a lesion containing reactive giant cells and a neoplastic mononuclear cell population; in up to 92% of cases, GCTB is characterised by a specific mutation of the histone gene H3F3A. The cellular composition ranges from giant‐cell‐rich to giant‐cell‐poor. The diagnosis of GCTB can be challenging, and several other lesions need to be excluded, e.g. aneurysmal bone cysts, non‐ossifying fibromas, chondroblastomas, brown tumours, and giant‐cell‐rich osteosarcomas. Our aim was to analyse the clinical history, imaging, molecular pathology and histology of three H3F3A‐mutated bone tumours without detectable giant cells. None of the patients received denosumab therapy.Methods and resultsDiagnostic material was obtained by curettage or resection and/or biopsy. Common histomorphological features of all three reported lesions were fibrocytic, oval cells in a background of osteoid and an absence of multinuclear giant cells as confirmed with CD68 immunohistochemistry. We used immunohistochemistry and Sanger sequencing to demonstrate positivity for the H3.3 p.G34W mutation. Differential diagnoses were systematically excluded on the basis of histomorphology, immunohistochemistry, and fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation. The imaging (radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging) for all three cases is presented and discussed.ConclusionsWe believe that these GCTBs without giant cells expand one end of the heterogeneous range of GCTB. Because of the lack of giant cells, correct diagnosis of GCTB is challenging or even impossible on histological grounds alone. In these cases, detection of the characteristic H3F3A mutation (G34W‐specific antibody RM263 or sequencing) is extremely helpful for diagnosing those lesions without giant cells as giant cell tumours of bone.

BackgroundThe purpose was to investigate whether patient-specific factors (PSF) and surgically modifiable factors (SMF), measured by means of a computer-assisted navigation system, can predict the Knee Society Scores (KSS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsData from 99 patients collected during a randomized clinical trial were used for this secondary data analysis. The KSS scores of the patients were measured preoperatively and at 4-years follow-up. Multiple regression analyses were performed to investigate which combination of variables would be the best to predict the 4-years KSS scores.ResultsWhen considering SMF alone the combination of four of them significantly predicted the 4-years KSS-F score (p = 0.009), explaining 18 % of its variation. When considering only PSF the combination of age and body weight significantly predicted the 4-years KSS-F (p = 0.008), explaining 11 % of its variation. When considering both groups of predictors simultaneously the combination of three PSF and two SMF significantly predicted the 4-years KSS-F (p = 0.007), explaining 20 % of its variation.ConclusionsYounger age, better preoperative KSS-F scores and lower BMI before surgery, a positive tibial component slope and small changes in femoral offset were predictors of better KSS-F scores at 4-years.

Level II, Prognostic study.