Assessment of patient functional performance in different knee arthroplasty designs during unconstrained squat

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

Introduction: Whether mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performs better than fixed-bearing (FB) implants in patients with monocompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) still remains unclear. Therefore, a meta-analysis comparing MB versus FB for UKA was conducted to investigate the possible advantages of MB versus FB in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications. We hypothesised that the MB design performs better than FB. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. In December 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were accessed, with no time constraints. All the clinical investigations comparing MB versus FB bearing for UKA were accessed. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals were considered. Studies reporting data on revision settings were excluded, as were those combining unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Results: Data from 25 studies (4696 patients) were collected; 58% (2724 of 4696 patients) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 45.8 ± 43.2. The mean age of the patients was 65.0 ± 5.6 years. No difference was found in range of motion (p = 0.05), Knee Scoring System (p = 0.9), function subscale (p = 0.2), and Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.4). No difference was found in the rate of revision (p = 0.2), aseptic loosening (p = 0.9), deep infections (p = 0.99), fractures (p = 0.6), and further extension of OA to the contralateral joint compartment (p = 0.2). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis failed to identify the possible superiority of the MB implants over the FB for UKA in patients with monocompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Long observational investigations are required to evaluate possible long-term complications and implant survivorship. These results should be interpreted within the limitations of the present study.

Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be either a fixed bearing (FB) or a mobile bearing (MB) construct with controversy as to which design is superior. This question is addressed with a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Studies were reviewed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria developed in advance. We compared the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the FB and MB UKAs. Analyses were performed with the Review Manager and STATA software. A total of 17 studies involving 2612 knees were included. No significant differences were presented between the FB and MB prostheses in clinical and radiological outcomes. However, it was evident that there were differences in the modes and timing of the failures, bearing dislocation led to earlier failures in the MB prosthesis, while the FB prosthesis failed later due to polyethylene wear. There was no evidence of publication bias using the incidence of revisions. There is no significant difference between the FB and MB UKAs; however, there are differences in the modes and timing of failures.

Fractal Analysis of Motor Control in Knee Arthroplasty Patients

Knee osteoarthritis is commonly treated through total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and therefore the assessment of postoperative differences in functional capabilities between TKA and UKA patients appears of primary importance. Throughout the years, fractal analysis has been applied to several biological time-series, revealing to be particularly useful for assessing human balance and motor control by quantifying complexity and repeatability of dynamic measures. In this study, fractal dimension (FD) has been computed on ground reaction force and momentum acquired during squatting movement in two groups of TKA and UKA patients and a control group of healthy subjects (CTRL). FD resulted able to discriminate between TKA and both CTRL and UKA group, showing significant differences in all the considered measures. Outcomes of this study could help to gain further information about functional recovery after different knee arthroplasty procedures, in order to improve the choice of rehabilitative treatment.

Comparison of Fixed-Bearing and Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have compared fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (FB-UKA) with mobile-bearing UKA (MB-UKA), suggesting that both procedures have good clinical outcomes. However, which treatment is more beneficial for patients is controversial. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, including the revision rate, complications, functional results, range of motion, and femoral-tibial angle, between the 2 procedures.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases starting from August 2017 to May 2018. The publication date of articles was not restricted. Before we submit our contribution, we have re-searched it again. Articles that directly compared the postoperative outcomes of the 2 prosthesis type were included.

RESULTS

A total of 15 comparative studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled data indicated no differences between the 2 operation modes in terms of revision rates, complications, and knee function, but earlier failure occurred more frequently with the MB design.

CONCLUSION

Both the arthroplasty types provided satisfactory clinical results for patients with classic indications. However, MB-UKA tended to fail in early postoperative years whereas fixed-bearing UKA in later postoperative years. Therefore treatment options should be carefully considered for each patient, and surgeons should still use their personal experience when deciding between these options.

Asymmetric polyethylene inserts promote favorable kinematics and better clinical outcome compared to symmetric inserts in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This study aims at comparing the effects of symmetric and asymmetric designs for the polyethylene insert currently available and also for mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The investigation was performed both clinically and biomechanically through finite element analysis.

METHODS

303 patients, with a mobile bearing TKA, were analyzed retrospectively. All patients received the same femoral and tibial components; for the insert, 151 patients received a symmetric design (SD) and 152 an asymmetric design (AD). Additionally, a 3D finite element model of a lower leg was developed, resurfaced with the same TKAs and analysed during gait and squat activities. TKA kinematics, and bone-stresses were investigated for the two insert solutions.

RESULTS

After surgery, patients' average flexion improved from 105°, with 5° of preoperative extension deficit, to 120° (AD-group) and 115° (SD-group) at the latest follow-up. There was no postoperative extension deficit. No pain affected the AD-group, while an antero-lateral pain was reported in some patients of the SD-group. Patients of the AD-group presented a better ability to perform certain physical routines. Biomechanically, the SD induced higher tibial-bone stresses than the AD. Both designs replicated similar kinematics, comparable to literature. However, SD rotates more on the tray, reducing the motion between femoral and polyethylene components, while AD permits greater insert rotation.

CONCLUSION

The biomechanical analysis justifies the clinical findings. TKA kinematics is similar for the two designs, although the asymmetric solution shows less bone stress, thus resulting as more suitable to be cemented, avoiding lift-off issues, inducing less pain. Clinically, and biomechanically, an asymmetric mobile bearing insert could be a valid alternative to symmetric mobile bearing insert.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study retrospective comparative study, III.