Fixed versus mobile weight-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty

Comprehensive evaluation of risk factors for aseptic loosening in cemented total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause for revisions after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite many studies exploring various risk factors associated with aseptic loosening, findings often present inconsistencies. To address this, we conducted a thorough review of the literature to identify and analyse these risk factors in cemented TKA. Additionally, we performed a meta-analysis to reconcile the divergent conclusions observed across studies.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from 1996 up to 2024 and evaluated the quality of the included literature. Seventy-four studies were included to assess the association of BMI, diabetes, high physical activity (HPA), osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cement material and implant design. Twenty-nine studies were used to calculate relative risk and CIs (using the random effects theory) and study heterogeneity for six different risk factors (BMI, diabetes, HPA level, cement material, polyethylene and implant design).

Results

Patients with diabetes are eight times more likely to experience aseptic loosening compared to those without diabetes (RR = 9.18, 95% CI: 1.80-46.77, p < 0.01). The use of tibial stem extension or highly crosslinked polyethylene can help reduce the incidence of aseptic loosening. However, we did not identify BMI, HPA, osteoporosis, RA, the use of high-viscosity cement and the utilization of mobile-bearing designs as risk factors for aseptic loosening post-cemented TKA.

Conclusions

Patients with diabetes undergoing TKA should be counselled regarding their potential increased risk of aseptic loosening. The use of tibial stem extensions and HXLPE can mitigate the incidence of aseptic loosening in cemented TKA. However, given a limited number of studies were included in the meta-analysis, we believe that higher-level studies are necessary to clearly identify other risk factors.

Level of Evidence

Level III.

Ten-year follow-up of a total knee prosthesis combining multi-radius, ultra-congruency, posterior-stabilization and mobile-bearing insert shows long-lasting clinically relevant improvements in pain, stiffness, function and stability

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of data available on total knee prostheses combining dual-radius, ultra-congruency, posterior-stabilization and mobile-bearing insert. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the clinical evolution of the FIRST^® prosthesis (Symbios Orthopédie, Yverdon, CH), the earliest prosthesis with this particular design. It was hypothesized that the primary outcomes, evaluating pain, stiffness, function and stability, would improve following arthroplasty and remain improved during the follow-up period of 10 years.

METHODS

All patients programmed for a total knee arthroplasty using a FIRST^® prosthesis at our university hospital between 2006 and 2008 were invited to participate. Study knees were evaluated pre-operatively as well as one, five and ten years post-operatively. Patients filled out questionnaires at each evaluation point and had a radiographic assessment at the five-year and ten-year follow-ups. Primary outcomes were the total, pain, stiffness and function measures of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis questionnaire (WOMAC) and the knee and function measures of the Knee Society Score (KSS). Friedman and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were used to compare measures across time points.

RESULTS

Hundred and twenty four prostheses were included (baseline demographics: 69.9 ± 8.3 years old, 28.1 ± 4.3 kg/m², 54% male) and 68 could be followed during ten years. Five prostheses underwent a revision. All other prostheses lost at follow-up were lost for reasons unrelated to the prosthesis. All primary measures reported statistically and clinically significant improvements between baseline and the three follow-up evaluations. Statistically significant improvements at the three follow-up evaluations were also observed for most secondary measures. There was no implant loosening. At ten-year follow-up, radiolucent lines were observed in 2.9% femoral implants and 1.5% tibial implants.

CONCLUSION

The positive results observed in all domains of assessment and the small revision rate demonstrated an effective functioning of the FIRST^® prosthesis during the ten-year follow-up period. The results, globally similar to those previously published for other prosthesis designs, encourage the development of assistive methods to select the most appropriate designs on an individual basis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, prospective cohort study.

No significant clinical and radiological differences between fixed versus mobile bearing total knee replacement using the same semi-constrained implant type: a randomized controlled trial with mean 10 years follow-up

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term clinical and radiological results between fixed (FB) and mobile bearing (MB) implants with identical design from the same manufacturer.

METHODS

From March 2007 to May 2009, we recruited 160 patients in a prospective, single centered, randomized controlled trial. The authors compared 81 FB total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus 79 MB with medial compartment osteoarthritis. The same posterior stabilized HLS Noetos knee prosthesis (CORIN) was used in all patients. The two groups only differed by the tibial insert (fixed or mobile). The authors compared the postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS), the passive clinical and active radiological knee flexion, the implant survivorship, the complications, and the presence of radiolucent lines.

RESULTS

At mean 10.5 years' follow-up (range 8-12.1 years) no significant differences were found in clinical scores (KSS (p = 0.54), pain score (p = 0.77), stair climbing (p = 0.44), passive maximum flexion (p = 0.5)) or for radiological analyses (maximum active radiological flexion (p = 0.06), presence of progressive radiolucent lines (5 (MB group) versus 6 (FB group); p = 0.75)) between groups. No significant difference was found in overall implant survivorship (82% (MB group) versus 78% (FB group) p = 0.58) or complication rate (p = 0.32) at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

No significant clinical and radiological differences were found between fixed and mobile bearing TKA using the same semi-constrained implant type with comparable overall survivorship. The choice between a fixed or mobile bearing implant should be based on surgeon preference and experience with the selected implant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective randomized controlled trial, Level II.

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

PURPOSE

Both mobile (MB) and fixed (FB) bearing implants are routinely used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This meta-analysis compared MB versus FB for TKA in terms of implant positioning, joint function, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications. It was hypothesised that MB performs better than FB implants in primary TKA.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In February 2022, the following databases were accessed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Embase. All the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing mobile versus fixed bearing for primary TKA were considered.

RESULTS

Data from 74 RCTs (11,116 procedures) were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 58.8 (7.5 to 315.6) months. The MB group demonstrated greater range of motion (ROM) (P = 0.02), Knee Society Score (KSS) score (P < 0.0001), and rate of deep infections (P = 0.02). No difference was found in implant positioning: tibial slope, delta angle, alpha femoral component angle, gamma femoral component angle, beta tibial component angle, tibiofemoral alignment angle, posterior condylar offset, radiolucent lines. No difference was found in duration of the surgical procedure. No difference was found in the following PROMs: Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analogue scale (VAS), function and pain subscales of the KSS score. No difference was found in the rate of anterior knee pain, revision, aseptic loosening, fractures, and deep vein thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence in support that MB implants promote greater outcomes compared to FB implants in primary TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Superior Mid- to Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Mobile-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Fixed-Bearing: A Meta-Analysis Based on a Minimum of 5 Years of Study

As more patients undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) each year, and the average age of patients gets younger, the patients are generally more active requiring a greater physiological demand and increasing range of motion on the prosthesis than the previous patients. However, there is no consensus on the optimal TKA tibial bearing design. We performed this systematic review to compare the clinical differences between mobile and fixed bearing constructs used in contemporary TKA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, identifying 515 total publications, including 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis was performed, while the quality and bias of the evidence were rated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines and the Cochrane Database questionnaire. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 1505 knees receiving a mobile bearing TKA and 1550 knees receiving a fixed bearing TKA. The meta-analysis compared clinical outcomes between mobile bearing (MB)-TKA and fixed bearing (FB)-TKA using postoperative Knee Society Score, postoperative ROM, and survivorship and showed that there was a distinct difference in Knee Society Score between the mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing groups (overall standardized mean difference = 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-2.25; p = 0.002; I² = 60%). Patients treated with mobile-bearing prostheses were more likely to report good or excellent range of motion results (overall standardized mean difference = 2.06; 95% CI: 0.65-3.47; p = 0.004). No difference in implant survivorship or reoperation rate were identified. The fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing TKA designs are both capable of producing excellent long-term results with excellent clinical outcomes if properly implanted; however, the mobile-bearing TKA have superiority in mid- to long-term clinical results. Trial registration number for PROSPERO was CRD42019126402.

Mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing mobile-bearing with fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in terms of all-cause revision rates, aspetic loosening, knee functional scores, range of motion and radiographic lucent lines and osteolysis.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Science were searched up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials that compared primary mobile-bearing with fixed-bearing TKA, reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest, at a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. All outcomes of interest were pooled at short-term (< 5 years), mid-term (5 to 9 years) and long-term (> = 10 years) follow-up intervals.

Results

A total of 70 eligible articles were included in the qualitative and statistical analyses. There was no difference between mobile-bearing or fixed-bearing TKA at short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-ups in all outcome measures including all-cause revision rate, aseptic loosening, oxford knee score, knee society score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, maximum knee flexion, radiographic lucent lines and radiographic osteolysis.

Conclusion

The current level of evidence demonstrated that both mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing designs achieved excellent outcomes, yet it does not prove the theoretical advantages of the mobile-bearing insert over its fixed-bearing counterpart. The use of either design could therefore be supported based on the outcomes assessed in this study.

Level of Evidence: Level II, Therapeutic

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s00590-021-02999-x).

No difference in patellar position between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty for medial osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the treatment of choice for severe osteoarthritis of the knee. Many studies have been performed comparing mobile- and fixed-bearing designs; however, there are insufficient data regarding the patellar position in either system. This study aimed to compare the resultant patellar position with a mobile- versus a fixed-bearing TKA and the influence of both designs on clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized study, between 2007 and 2009, 160 TKA patients were assessed; 79 received a mobile-bearing and 81 received a fixed-bearing implant, for medial compartment osteoarthritis. A posteriorly stabilized, HLS Noetos knee prosthesis (Tornier, Saint-Ismier, France) was used in all cases. The only difference between the groups was whether the tibial component incorporated a fixed or mobile bearing. The patella was resurfaced in all cases. The International Knee Society Score (KSS) and the patellar tilt and translation were compared post-operatively. Patellar translation and patellar tilt analyses were subdivided into two subgroups (< 5 mm vs > 5 mm and < 5° vs > 5°).

RESULTS

The KSS was not statistically different between the groups at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (range 5-11 years). Patellar translation and patellar tilt were not statistically different between the groups. When considering the patellar translation subgroup analysis, a significantly increased risk of patellar translation, greater than 5 mm, was found in the mobile-bearing group compared to fixed-bearing group (OR = 2.3; p = 0.048) without generating any meaningful difference in clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The theoretical advantages of mobile-bearing implants compared to fixed-bearing implants were not demonstrated in this randomized study, at mid-term follow-up. In daily practice, the choice between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing designs should be based on the experience and clinical judgment of the surgeon.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective randomized study, level I.

Preoperative valgus deformity has twice the risk of failure as compared to varus deformity after total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess whether preoperative valgus or varus deformity affected survivorship after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to quantify the risk factors for implant failure in a registry-based population.

METHODS

The Emilia-Romagna Registry of Prosthetic Orthopedic Implants was examined regarding TKAs performed on patients with a preoperative diagnosis of valgus or varus deformity. Demographics, implant characteristic and survivorships were investigated and compared. A total of 2327 TKA procedures performed from 2000 to 2016 were included in the study. Six hundred and forty primary TKAs with a diagnosis of valgus deformity were evaluated with a median follow-up of 3.3 years; 1687 primary TKAs with a diagnosis of varus deformity were evaluated with a median follow-up of 2.5 years.

RESULTS

Bi-compartmental, cemented posterior stabilised fixed-bearing implants were preferred. For both diagnoses, the implant survivorship rate was greater than 98% in the first year. However, the survival curve of the TKAs implanted for valgus deformity showed a greater slope in the first 3 years as compared to the survival curve of those implanted for varus deformity. Valgus deformity had a 2.1-fold higher risk for revision as compared with varus deformity. Infection was a major cause of implant failure in TKAs for varus deformity, 9/24 (37.5%), while its incidence was lower for valgus deformity, 1/21 (4.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative valgus alignment showed a twofold risk of failure as compared to varus alignment after TKA. This should be considered in daily practice, and surgeons are called on to pay more attention when performing TKAs on such patients. Prospective randomised controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to better understand the role of preoperative coronal knee deformity in implant failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III.

No differences between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty

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.

Patella position is not a determinant for anterior knee pain 10 years after balanced gap total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Incidence of anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is reported to be between 4 and 49 %. The incidence of AKP at long-term follow-up and possible determinants after cruciate cruciate-retaining TKA were investigated.

METHODS

A 10-year follow-up of a cohort of 55 patients (63 TKAs), who received the balanSys™ cruciate-retaining total knee system (Mathys Ltd, Bettlach, Switzerland) between 1999 and 2002, was performed. Patients had undergone the balanced gap technique, with either a fixed bearing or an AP-glide bearing. Standardised diagnostic questions regarding AKP were collected and categorised into two groups: those with and without AKP. The lateral patellar tilt, patellar displacement measurement and modified Insall-Salvati ratio were used for patella position evaluation on skyline radiographs. The Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for pain and satisfaction were obtained at follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients in the study population experienced AKP. Incidence of AKP (fixed bearing 13/44; AP-glide bearing baring 3/17) was not dependent on type of insert (n.s.). There were no statistical differences in patella position and tibiofemoral contact point between the AKP group and the no AKP group (n.s.). KSS, KOOS, NRS-pain and NRS-satisfaction were significantly lower for the patients with AKP (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Twenty-six percentage of the patients experienced AKP 10 years after balanced gap TKA. Postoperative patella positioning was not found to be a determinant for anterior knee pain after TKA. However, patellar displacement does not seem completely favourable. Moreover, type of bearing was not found a determinant for AKP at long-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Lower quality prospective cohort study (<80 % follow-up, patients enrolled at different time points in disease), Level II.

Different femorotibial contact points between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs do not show clinical impact

PURPOSE

In anteroposterior (AP)-gliding mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the femoral component can theoretically slide forward resulting in a more anterior contact point, causing pain due to impingement. A lower lever arm of the extensor apparatus can also attribute to higher patella pressures and pain. The goal of this study was to determine the contact point in a cohort of mobile- and fixed-bearing TKAs, to determine whether the contact point lies more anteriorly in mobile-bearing TKA and to confirm whether this results in anterior knee pain.

METHODS

We used 38 fixed-bearing TKA and 40 mobile-bearing TKA from a randomized trial with straight lateral knee X-rays and measured the contact point. The functional outcome was measured by Knee Society Score at 12 months postoperatively. Pain scores were analysed using a VAS score (0-100 mm) in all patients at rest and when moving. Difficulty at rising up out of a chair was also assessed using a VAS score.

RESULTS

The contact point in mobile-bearing TKA was situated at 59.5 % of the AP distance of the tibia and in the fixed-bearing TKA group at 66.1 % (P< 0.05). Patients with mobile- and fixed-bearing TKAs had similar knee scores, pain scores and difficulty in chair rise. No significant correlation was found between contact point and knee pain.

CONCLUSION

The hypothesis of a more anterior contact point in the mobile-bearing cohort was confirmed but no correlation with functional and pain scores in this cohort could be found. The tibiofemoral contact point could not be correlated with a different clinical outcome and higher incidence of anterior knee pain. This study further adds to the knowledge on possible differences between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses. Next to that, bad outcomes could not be explained by CP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

A clinical study of the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty

[Purpose] The reasons for femorotibial rotational malalignment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were analyzed to provide evidence for clinical knee joint surgery and to reduce complications. [Subjects and Methods] Ninety knees of 60 patients were selected and randomly divided into two groups (n=30). For one group, rotational alignment of the femoral component was determined by the transepicondylar axis and TKA was performed. For the other group, rotational alignment of the femoral component was conducted through 3° external rotation of the posterior femoral condyles. Knee joint specimens were operated with TKA and various biomechanical indices were measured. [Results] The femoral epicondylar axis was a constant, reliable reference for femoral component rotational alignment. When the femoral component was rotated by 0° versus the epicondylar axis, the peak contact pressure on the patellofemoral joint was optimal. When the femoral component was arranged in parallel with Whiteside's line, the peak contact pressure on the patellofemoral joint varied largely. The patellofemoral contact areas of the two groups were similar. [Conclusion] Axial rotational alignment of the femoral component influenced the contact pressure of patellofemoral joints in TKA more significantly than external rotation of the femoral condyles. It is more reliable to use the femoral epicondylar axis as the reference for the rotational alignment of the femoral component.

Survival and functional results after a mean follow-up of 9 years with the Ceragyr® highly congruent mobile-bearing TKA

INTRODUCTION

Fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implants have excellent long-term survival. Mobile-bearing implants were developed to reduce bone-implant interface stresses and polyethylene insert wear. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the survival rate of a highly congruent mobile-bearing TKA implant (Ceragyr(®)) in patients having a minimum follow-up of 7 years. We hypothesized that the survival rate would be 95-100% at that time point.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-center prospective study included all the patients operated for a primary TKA procedure with a Ceragyr(®) implant between 2000 and 2003. All the implants were cemented. Patellar resurfacing was not carried out systematically, but could be carried out secondarily in cases of persistent anterior knee pain. Clinical and radiological data were collected before the surgery, at 3 months postoperative, at 1 year and then at a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary endpoint was the overall revision-free survival rate. Secondary endpoints were the survival without mechanical failure, IKS scores, knee range of motion and implant positioning.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four patients (143 Ceragyr(®) TKA cases) were included; 9 patients (10 TKA) were lost to follow-up (6.7%) and the remaining 125 patients (133 TKA) were contacted. At the final review, 7 of the 133 TKA cases (5.3%) had been revised (6 men, 1 women; P = 0.002), 2 (1.5%) because of mechanical failure and 5 (3.8%) because of an infection. The overall revision-free survival rate was 94.8% [95% CI: 89.3-97.5]; survival was 98.4% [95% CI: 93.8-99.6] with mechanical failure as an endpoint. An in-person assessment was conducted on 76 patients (80 TKA cases) (49 women; 27 men) who had an average age of 70.3 ± 8.4 years at the time of the arthroplasty procedure. The patella had been resurfaced during the initial procedure in 49 cases, and was either not resurfaced or secondarily resurfaced in 31 cases. The average follow-up was 8.7 ± 1.1 years. The IKS score had significantly improved relative to the preoperative values (P < 0.00001). Knee flexion and the IKS knee score remained stable over time (P > 0.05). Patients who underwent patella resurfacing during the initial TKA procedure had better clinical results (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

After a minimum follow-up of 7years, the overall revision-free survival rate for the Ceragyr(®) was 94.8%; the survival was 98.4% with mechanical failure as an endpoint. The results were stable over time.

Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty for postoperative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether there are differences in benefits and harms between mobile and fixed prostheses for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The previous Cochrane review published in 2004 included two articles. Many more trials have been performed since then; therefore an update is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of mobile bearing compared with fixed bearing cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty for functional and clinical outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science up to 27 February 2014, and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov, Multiregister, Current Controlled Trials and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for data from unpublished trials, up to 11 February 2014. We also screened the reference lists of selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials comparing mobile bearing with fixed bearing prostheses in cruciate retaining TKA among patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, using functional or clinical outcome measures and follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 19 studies with 1641 participants (1616 with OA (98.5%) and 25 with RA (1.5%)) and 2247 knees. Seventeen new studies were included in this update.Quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (knee pain) to low (other outcomes). Most studies had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment and selective reporting, and high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and other bias. Knee painWe calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) for pain, using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 11 studies (58%) and 1531 knees (68%). No statistically significant differences between groups were reported (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.22, P value 0.15). This represents an absolute risk difference of 2.4% points higher (95% CI 0.8% lower to 5.9% higher) on the KSS pain scale and a relative percent change of 0.22% (95% CI 0.07% lower to 0.53% higher). The results were homogeneous. Clinical and functional scores The KSS clinical score did not differ statistically significantly between groups (14 studies (74%) and 1845 knees (82%)) with a mean difference (MD) of -1.06 points (95% CI -2.87 to 0.74, P value 0.25) and heterogeneous results. KSS function was reported in 14 studies (74%) with 1845 knees (82%) as an MD of -0.10 point (95% CI -1.93 to 1.73, P value 0.91) and homogeneous results. In two studies (11%), the KSS total score was favourable for mobile bearing (159 vs 132 for fixed bearing), with MD of -26.52 points (95% CI -45.03 to -8.01, P value 0.005), but with a wide 95% confidence interval indicating uncertainty about the estimate.Other reported scoring systems did not show statistically significant differences: Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score (seven studies (37%) in 1021 knees (45%)) with an MD of -1.36 (95% CI -4.18 to 1.46, P value 0.35); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (two studies (11%), 167 knees (7%)) with an MD of -4.46 (95% CI -16.26 to 7.34, P value 0.46); and Oxford total (five studies (26%), 647 knees (29%) with an MD of -0.25 (95% CI -1.41 to 0.91, P value 0.67). Health-related quality of lifeThree studies (16%) with 498 knees (22%) reported on health-related quality of life, and no statistically significant differences were noted between the mobile bearing and fixed bearing groups. The Short Form (SF)-12 Physical Component Summary had an MD of -1.96 (95% CI -4.55 to 0.63, P value 0.14) and heterogeneous results. Revision surgeryTwenty seven revisions (1.3%) were performed in 17 studies (89%) with 2065 knees (92%). In all, 13 knees were revised in the fixed bearing group and 14 knees in the mobile bearing group. No statistically significant differences were found (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, P value 0.58), and homogeneous results were reported. MortalityIn seven out of 19 studies, 13 participants (37%) died. Two of these participants had undergone bilateral surgery, and for seven participants, it was unclear which prosthesis they had received; therefore they were excluded from the analyses. Thus our analysis included four out of 191 participants (2.1%) who had died: one in the fixed bearing group and three in the mobile bearing group. No statistically significant differences were found. The risk difference was -0.02 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.03, P value 0.49) and results were homogeneous. Reoperation ratesThirty reoperations were performed in 17 studies (89%) with 2065 knees (92%): 18 knees in the fixed bearing group (of the 1031 knees) and 12 knees in the mobile group (of the 1034 knees). No statistically significant differences were found. The risk difference was -0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, P value 0.99) with homogeneous results. Other serious adverse eventsSixteen studies (84%) reported nine other serious adverse events in 1735 knees (77%): four in the fixed bearing group (of the 862 knees) and five in the mobile bearing group (of the 873 knees). No statistically significant differences were found (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, P value 0.88), and results were homogeneous.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-quality evidence suggests that mobile bearing prostheses may have similar effects on knee pain, clinical and functional scores, health-related quality of life, revision surgery, mortality, reoperation rate and other serious adverse events compared with fixed bearing prostheses in posterior cruciate retaining TKA. Therefore we cannot draw firm conclusions. Most (98.5%) participants had OA, so the findings primarily reflect results reported in participants with OA. Future studies should report in greater detail outcomes such as those presented in this systematic review, with sufficient follow-up time to allow gathering of high-quality evidence and to inform clinical practice. Large registry-based studies may have added value, but they are subject to treatment-by-indication bias. Therefore, this systematic review of RCTs can be viewed as the best available evidence.

The Rotaglide mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: no difference between cemented and hybrid implantation

PURPOSE

The optimal fixation of the Rotaglide total knee arthroplasty's (TKA) components is controversial. It is hypothesized that the hybrid fixation (cementless femoral component) in a mobile-bearing TKA system might cause increased rate of loosening--especially in the femoral part--and finally failure of the arthroplasty. Consequently, the aim of this study was to compare the survival and revision rates and also the clinical and radiological outcomes of the cemented and hybrid fixation of the Rotaglide TKA.

METHODS

One hundred patients, who underwent TKA with the Rotaglide prosthesis, were randomly placed in two groups. In the first group, the prosthesis was cemented, and in the second group, the hybrid technique was used. Revision and mortality rates were compared after 8-12 years of follow-up. Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire and the Knee Society Roentgenographic Evaluation and Scoring System were used to demonstrate clinical and radiographic differences.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in revision (n.s.) or mortality (n.s.) rates between the two treatment arms. The clinical outcome at the time of last follow-up (mean 9.5 years, SD ± 1.4) ranged from very good to excellent (77.8 ± 17.5 for the cemented group and 77.2 ± 20.4 for the hybrid group). No statistically significant differences in all KOOS subscales. Radiographs showed no significant difference in prosthesis alignment and no evidence of loosening between groups.

CONCLUSION

The hypothesis that the hybrid fixation in a mobile-bearing TKA system might cause increased rate of loosening and finally failure of the arthroplasty was not confirmed. The fixation technique (cemented or hybrid) had no influence on the prosthesis's survivorship, and also on mortality rates, clinical and radiographic outcomes in a mean follow-up time of 9.5 ± 1.4 years. The Rotaglide TKA is a safe and reliable prosthesis regardless the fixation technique.

Rotating-platform TKA no different from fixed-bearing TKA regarding survivorship or performance: a meta-analysis

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 fixed-bearing 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.

A systematic review of clinical outcomes and survivorship after total knee arthroplasty with a contemporary modular knee system

A systematic review appraising the clinical performance and safety of the primary SIGMA modular knee system (DePuy-Synthes, Warsaw, Ind.) found 5 registry reports and 53 journal publications reporting survivorship or postoperative increase in Knee Society scores on 241632 primary SIGMA knee arthroplasties. Pooled data from national joint registries and clinical studies on primary SIGMA knee survivorship were comparable. Both were higher than for all other knees in 5 national joint registries up to 5 years. Compared with pooled data from 2 independent systematic reviews of primary non-SIGMA knees, the SIGMA system provided comparable postoperative changes in Knee Society knee score and a nonsignificant trend of higher postoperative changes in Knee Society function score. This finding suggests that this knee system provides excellent durable results.

Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a mobile-bearing design in total knee replacement?

The purpose of this study was to undertake a meta-analysis to determine whether there is lower polyethylene wear and longer survival when using mobile-bearing implants in total knee replacement when compared with fixed-bearing implants. Of 975 papers identified, 34 trials were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis comprising 4754 patients (6861 knees). We found no statistically significant differences between the two designs in terms of the incidence of radiolucent lines, osteolysis, aseptic loosening or survival. There is thus currently no evidence to suggest that the use of mobile-bearing designs reduce polyethylene wear and prolong survival after total knee replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1057–63.

Comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty with a mean five-year follow-up: A meta-analysis

Controversy exists regarding the clinical and radiological differences in outcomes between fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) at the mid- or long-term follow-up. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have evaluated FB and MB TKAs. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase. The data, including demographic information, methodological quality, duration of follow-up, clinical and radiographical outcomes, patient preferences and complications, were extracted. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed in accordance with the guidelines presented in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Nine trials, studying 1,821 knees, were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. The Knee Society score and the maximum knee flexion demonstrated no difference between the FB and MB groups (P=0.47 and P=0.72, respectively). Similarly, no difference was revealed between the groups for radiological outcomes or general health results. An increased number of high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-ups are required to validate the results.