Is there any superiority in the clinical outcome of mobile-bearing knee prosthesis designs compared to fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis designs in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint?

Bracht, Hans Van Der; Maele, Georges Van; Verdonk, Peter; Almqvist, Karl; Verdonk, René; Freeman, M. A. R.

doi:10.1007/s00167-009-0973-z

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 6 to 10 year (median 7.9 years) follow-up study the mobile bearing knees did not sustain the difference in AKP that had been found in the short-term study [12,13] . These results are comparable to the findings of other systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis, most of which have not shown an advantage of using a mobile bearing [22,36,[48][49][50][51] . Based on these results combined with a recent metaanalysis showing less AKP in the mobile bearing TKA, it seems that the debate can be reopened as to whether the mobile bearing TKA is part of the solution to AKP [52] .…”

Section: Regeneration Of Nervessupporting

confidence: 87%

Anterior knee pain after a total knee arthroplasty: What can cause this pain?

Breugem¹,

Haverkamp²

2014

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total Knee Arthroplasty has been shown to be a successful procedure for treating patients with osteoarthritis, and yet approximately 5%-10% of patients experience residual pain, especially in the anterior part of the knee. Many theories have been proposed to explain the etiology of this anterior knee pain (AKP) but, despite improvements having been made, AKP remains a problem. AKP can be described as retropatellar or peripatellar pain, which limits patients in their everyday lives. Patients suffering from AKP experience difficulty in standing up from a chair, walking up and down stairs and riding a bicycle. The question asked was: "How can a 'perfectly' placed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) still be painful: what can cause this pain?". To prevent AKP after TKA it is important to first identify the different anatomical structures that can cause this pain. Greater attention to and understanding of AKP should lead to significant pain relief and greater overall patient satisfaction after TKA. This article is a review of what pain is, how nerve signalling works and what is thought to cause Anterior Knee Pain after a Total Knee Arthroplasty.© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. Key words:Anterior knee pain; Patellofemoral pain; Total knee arthroplasty; Malrotation; Homeostasis Core tip: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been shown to be a successful procedure for treating patients with osteoarthritis, and yet approximately 5%-10% of patients experience anterior knee pain (AKP). To prevent AKP after TKA it is important to first identify the different anatomical structures that can cause this pain. Greater attention to and understanding of AKP should lead to significant pain relief and greater overall patient satisfaction after TKA. This article is a review of what pain is, how nerve signalling works and what is thought to cause AKP after a TKA.Breugem SJM, Haverkamp D. Anterior knee pain after a total knee arthroplasty: What can cause this pain? World

show abstract

Section: Regeneration Of Nervessupporting

confidence: 87%

Anterior knee pain after a total knee arthroplasty: What can cause this pain?

Breugem¹,

Haverkamp²

2014

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies have compared all mobile-bearing subtypes as a single cohort with fixed-bearing designs [4,5,33]; some meta-analyses performed the same comparison as a result of the availability of data [17,24,28,37,38,41,42]. Six of the meta-analyses comparing mobile-bearing and fixedbearing prostheses that we reviewed in preparation for our meta-analysis found no significant differences in The Knee Society scores, Hospital for Special Surgery scores, ROM, radiolucent lines, prosthesis-related complications, or patient preference [24,27,28,37,38,42].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotating-platform TKA No Different from Fixed-bearing TKA Regarding Survivorship or Performance: A Meta-analysis

Moskal

Capps²

2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mobile bearings have been compared with fixed bearings used in TKA. However, rotating platforms, a specific type of mobile bearing, have not been compared with fixed-bearings using meta-analysis. Questions/purposes We asked whether the performance of a rotating-platform bearing is superior to, comparable to, or worse than a fixed bearing. Four areas were investigated: clinical performance, component alignment, adverse event rates, and revision rates. Methods Searches of Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane databases, combined with reference lists from published meta-analyses and systematic reviews of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses used in TKAs, provided 17 nonlanguage-restricted studies consisting of 1910 TKAs (966 rotating platform versus 944 fixed bearing). Random-effect modeling was used for all meta-analyses, thereby mitigating possible effects of heterogeneity among studies. All meta-analyses were examined for publication bias using funnel plots; publication bias was not detected for any meta-analysis. Results There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in clinical performance (clinical scores, ROM, and radiographic evaluation), component alignment, revision rates, or adverse event rates except for tibial component alignment in the AP plane, which favored TKA with fixed-bearings (p = 0.020; standardized mean difference, 0.229; 95% CI, 0.035-0.422), but the effect size was small enough that it was not considered clinically important. Conclusions Based on our findings, which agree substantially with those of prior systematic reviews of TKAs with mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, there is no compelling case for either rotating-platform or fixedbearing implant design in terms of clinical performance, component alignment, adverse event frequencies, or survivorship. This dataset, which was limited to a maximum 6 years followup, is insufficient to address questions related to wear or late revisions. We therefore suggest that implant choice should be made on the basis of other factors, perhaps including cost or surgeon experience.

show abstract

“…The results after primary knee arthroplasty are reasonably predictable and reproducible [6,11,19,35,38]. Revision knee arthroplasty is a technically and economically demanding procedure [8,23,39] and is usually associated with worse results than after primary arthroplasty [3,7,15,17,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%