One year after navigated total knee replacement, no clinically relevant difference found between fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee replacement in a double-blind randomized controlled trial

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).

Implant design affects walking and stair navigation after total knee arthroplasty: a double-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dissimilar total knee arthroplasty implant designs offer different functional characteristics. This is the first work in the literature to fully assess the Columbus ultra-congruent mobile (UCR) system with a rotating platform.

METHODS

This is a double-blinded randomised controlled trial, comparing the functional performance of the low congruent fixed (CR DD), ultra-congruent fixed (UC) and UCR Columbus Total Knee Systems. The pre-operative and post-operative functional performance of twenty-four osteoarthritic patients was evaluated against nine control participants when carrying out everyday tasks. Spatiotemporal, kinematic and kinetic gait parameters in walking and stair navigation were extracted by means of motion capture.

RESULTS

The UC implant provided better post-operative function, closely followed by the UCR design. However, both the UC and UCR groups exhibited restricted post-operative sagittal RoM (walking, 52.1 ± 4.4° and 53.2 ± 6.6°, respectively), whilst patients receiving a UCR implant did not show an improvement in their tibiofemoral axial rotation despite the bearing's mobile design (walking, CR DD 13.2 ± 4.6°, UC 15.3 ± 6.7°, UCR 13.5 ± 5.4°). Patients with a CR DD fixed bearing showed a statistically significant post-operative improvement in their sagittal RoM when walking (56.8 ± 4.6°).

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that both ultra-congruent designs in this study, the UC and UCR bearings, showed comparable functional performance and improvement after TKA surgery. The CR DD group showed the most prominent improvement in the sagittal RoM during walking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered under the clinical trial registration number: NCT02422251 . Registered on April 21, 2015.

Short-term differences in anterior knee pain and clinical outcomes between rotating and fixed platform posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty with a new femoral component design

AIM

To compare rotating versus fixed-bearing Press-Fit Condylar (PFC) Sigma posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with the new “J curve” femoral design in terms of clinical outcomes and anterior knee pain.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 39 patients who underwent primary total knee replacement surgery for knee osteoarthritis using the PFC Sigma PS TKA with either fixed (FP group, 20 cases) or rotating platform (RP group, 19 cases) treated between 2009 and 2013 by the same surgeon. The two groups were homogeneous for age, gender, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, pre-operative clinical and functional scores, and prosthetic alignment at two years after surgery. We analyzed clinical outcomes score at two years follow-up using Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Performance Score, Short Form (SF) 36, and anterior knee pain assessed by the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) patellar score.

RESULTS

No differences were found in KSS, Knee Performance Score, and SF-36 outcome scores. A statistically significant difference was found in the HSS Patella score objective (FP: 22.36; RP: 28.75; P < 0.05), HSS Patella score total (FP: 73.68; RP: 86.50; P < 0.05), and KOOS symptoms (FP: 73.49; RP: 86.44; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Rotating platform in PFC Sigma PS TKA appears to reduce the short-term incidence of anterior knee pain compared to the fixed platform.

Increased risk of aseptic loosening for 43,525 rotating-platform vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacements

Background and purpose - Given similar functional outcomes with mobile and fixed bearings, a difference in survivorship may favor either. This study investigated the risk of aseptic loosening for the most used subtypes of mobile-bearing rotating-platform knees, in Norway and Australia. Patients and methods - Primary TKRs reported to the Norwegian and Australian joint registries, between 2003 and 2014, were analyzed with aseptic loosening as primary end-point and all revisions as secondary end-point. We hypothesized that no difference would be found in the rate of revision between rotating-platform and the most used fixed-bearing TKRs, or between keeled and non-keeled tibia. Kaplan-Meier estimates and curves, and Cox regression relative risk estimates adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis were used for comparison. Results - The rotating-platform TKRs had an increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening compared with the most used fixed-bearing knees, in Norway (RR =6, 95% CI 4-8) and Australia (RR =2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5). The risk of aseptic loosening as a reason for revision was highest in Norway compared with Australia (RR =1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.0). The keeled tibial component had the same risk of aseptic loosening as the non-keeled tibia (Australia). Fixation method and subtypes of the tibial components had no impact on the risk of aseptic loosening in these mobile-bearing knees. Interpretation - The rotating-platform TKRs in this study appeared to have a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening than the most used fixed-bearing TKRs.

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.

Do Well-Balanced Primary TKA Patients Achieve Better Outcomes Within the First Year After Surgery?

Some surgically modifiable factors are related to soft tissue balance. With computer-assisted surgery, it is possible to access these variables quantitatively. The aim of this analysis was to study the influence of gap balance on clinical outcomes within the first year after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Based on navigation data, 3 independent variables reflecting gap balance were used to split the patients in 2 groups. The Knee Society Scores (Function [KSS-F] and Knee [KSS-K]) and the maximal knee flexion (MKF) measured preoperatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months were compared using analyses of variance (2×4 design) for repeated measures. Higher flexion-extension gap equality led to statistically higher KSS-F and KSS-K scores at 1 year (P=.02). Higher medial-lateral flexion gap equality led to superior mean MKF at all measurement points; however the differences were statistically only significant at 3 months (P=.01). The coefficients of variation of the variables used to select the patients were overall very low. With computer-assisted navigation, it is possible to access quantitatively the size of the medial and lateral flexion and extension gaps. Higher flexion-extension gap equality values led to statistically significant better KSS-F and KSS-K scores at 1 year. Higher medial-lateral flexion gap equality values led to better MKF values; however the differences were only statistically significant at 3 months. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(3):S6-S12.].

Total knee arthroplasty with mobile tibial weight-bearing: clinical evaluation after a minimum of five years of postoperative follow-up

Objective

To evaluate the medium and long term results from total knee arthroplasty with rotating tibial weight-bearing.

Methods

Between January 2000 and July 2007, 162 patients underwent total knee arthroplasty with mobile tibial weight-bearing. Among these, 96 were evaluated in a previous study with a mean follow-up of 4 years. In the present study, the same group was invited back for reassessment and the results were analyzed. Sixty-nine patients responded to this call (79 knees), and they were evaluated in accordance with the Knee Society Rating System (KSRS), after a mean follow-up of 8 years and 8 months (ranging from 5.5 and 13 years).

Results

A mean KSRS score of 74.41 points was obtained, with good or excellent results.

Conclusion

The medium and long-term results from total knee arthroplasty with mobile tibial weight-bearing were good, and a mean score of 74.41 points in the Knee Society Clinical Rating System was attained.

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.

Gait analysis of fixed bearing and mobile bearing total knee prostheses during walking: do mobile bearings offer functional advantages?

BACKGROUND

Limited previous findings have detailed biomechanical advantages following implantation with mobile bearing (MB) prostheses after total knee replacement (TKR) surgery during walking. The aim of this study was to compare three dimensional spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic parameters during walking to examine whether MBs offer functional advantages over fixed bearing (FB) designs.

METHODS

Sixteen patients undergoing primary unilateral TKR surgery were randomised to receive either a FB (n=8) or MB (n=8) total knee prosthesis. Eight age and gender matched controls underwent the same protocol on one occasion. A 12 camera Vicon system integrated with four force plates was used. Patients were tested pre-surgery and nine months post-surgery.

RESULTS

No significant differences between FB and MB groups were found at any time point in the spatiotemporal parameters. The MB group was found to have a significantly reduced frontal plane knee range of motion (ROM) at pre-surgery than the FB group (FB=14.92±4.02°; MB=8.87±4.82°), with the difference not observed post-surgery. No further significant kinematic or kinetic differences were observed between FB and MB groups. Fixed bearing and MB groups both displayed spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic differences when compared to controls. Fixed bearing and MB groups differed from controls in six and five parameters at nine months post-surgery, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No functional advantages were found in knees implanted with MB prostheses during walking, with both groups indicative of similar differences when compared to normal knee biomechanics following prosthesis implantation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

No difference in anterior knee pain between a fixed and a mobile posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty after 7.9 years

PURPOSE

The presence of anterior knee pain remains one of the major complaints following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Since the introduction of the mobile TKA, many studies have been performed and only a few show a slight advantage for the mobile. In our short-term follow-up study, we found less anterior knee pain in the posterior stabilized mobile knees compared to the posterior stabilized knees. The concept of self-alignment and the results from our short-term study led us to form the hypothesis that the posterior stabilized mobile knee leads to a lower incidence of anterior knee pain compared to the posterior stabilized fixed knee. This study was designed to see whether this difference remains after 7.9 years in the follow-up. A secondary line of enquiry was to see whether one was superior to the other regarding pain, function, quality of life and survival.

METHODS

This current report is a 6-10-year (median 7.9 years) follow-up study of the remaining 69 patients with a cemented three-component TKA for osteoarthritis in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.

RESULTS

In the posterior stabilized group, five of the 40 knees (13%) versus five of the 29 posterior stabilized mobile group (17%) experienced anterior knee pain. No differences were observed with regard to ROM, VAS, Oxford 12-item knee questionnaire, SF-36, HSS patella, Kujala or the AKSS score. Patients with anterior knee pain reported more pain, lower levels of the AKSS, HSS patella and the Kujala scores than the patients without anterior knee pain.

CONCLUSION

In the current clinical practice, the appearance of anterior knee pain persists as a problem; simply changing to a mobile bearing does not seem to be the solution. The posterior stabilized mobile total knee did not sustain the advantage of less anterior knee pain, compared with the posterior stabilized fixed total knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level II.

A systematic review and meta-regression of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies

Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates, clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice.

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.

Fixed versus mobile weight-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare clinical, radiological, and general health results of two prostheses (mobile vs. fixed weight-bearing devices) that are used in total knee arthroplasty with a 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

This randomized controlled study was conducted from 2004 to 2010 in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at two university hospitals in Isfahan, Iran. Three hundred patients with expected primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) without severe deformity (a fixed varus or valgus deformity greater than 20°) received fixed weight-bearing (n = 150) or mobile weight-bearing (n = 150) devices. Clinical, radiological, and quality of life outcomes were compared between the two groups at six-month intervals for the first year, after which the comparisons were made annually for the next 4 years.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Although there was significant improvement in both groups, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the means of the Knee Society Scores, which were 92 (SD: 12.1) for the fixed weight-bearing device and 93 (SD: 14.2) for the mobile weight-bearing device (n.s.) at the final follow-up point. Radiographs showed that there was no significant difference in prosthetic alignment and no evidence of loosening. After TKA, the SF-36 score increased in both groups, but there was no statistical difference between the groups in quality of life at the final follow-up (62 (12.2) vs. 64 (14.3), n.s.). There was no revision after 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of clinical, radiological or general health outcomes for people who underwent TKA, the results of this study showed no clear advantage of mobile weight-bearing over the fixed weight-bearing prosthesis at the five-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Automatic joint alignment measurements in pre- and post-operative long leg standing radiographs

OBJECTIVES

For diagnosis or treatment assessment of knee joint osteoarthritis it is required to measure bone morphometry from radiographic images. We propose a method for automatic measurement of joint alignment from pre-operative as well as post-operative radiographs.

METHODS

In a two step approach we first detect and segment any implants or other artificial objects within the image. We exploit physical characteristics and avoid prior shape information to cope with the vast amount of implant types. Subsequently, we exploit the implant delineations to adapt the initialization and adaptation phase of a dedicated bone segmentation scheme using deformable template models. Implant and bone contours are fused to derive the final joint segmentation and thus the alignment measurements.

RESULTS

We evaluated our method on clinical long leg radiographs and compared both the initialization rate, corresponding to the number of images successfully processed by the proposed algorithm, and the accuracy of the alignment measurement. Ground truth has been generated by an experienced orthopedic surgeon. For comparison a second reader reevaluated the measurements. Experiments on two sets of 70 and 120 digital radiographs show that 92% of the joints could be processed automatically and the derived measurements of the automatic method are comparable to a human reader for pre-operative as well as post-operative images with a typical error of 0.7° and correlations of r = 0.82 to r = 0.99 with the ground truth.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method allows deriving objective measures of joint alignment from clinical radiographs. Its accuracy and precision are on par with a human reader for all evaluated measurements.

Comparison of arthroplasty trial publications after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov

In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors established a mandatory trial registration before study enrollment for publication in member journals. Our primary objective was to evaluate the publication rates of arthroplasty trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG). We further aimed to examine the consistency of registration summaries with that of final publications. We searched CTG for all trials related to joint arthroplasty and conducted a thorough search for publications resulting from registered closed trials. Of 101 closed and completed trials, we found 23 publications, for an overall publication rate of 22.8%. Registration of arthroplasty trials in CTG does not consistently result in publication or disclosure of results. In addition, changes are frequently made to the final presentation of the data that are not reflected in the trial registry.

Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing designs in high flexion total knee arthroplasty: using a navigation system

Purpose

We compared and analyzed the short term results of high flexion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with mobile-bearing and fixed bearing designs.

Materials and Methods

We studied 32 patients that had undergone TKA with LPS-Flex Mobile and 34 patients with LPS-Flex Fixed using an electromagnetic navigation system between January 2010 and June 2010, and were followed up for at least 1 year.

Results

Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS) and Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS) of the mobile-bearing group were 94.5 and 93.8 points, respectively, and were 48.2 and 45.3 points preoperatively, whereas those of the fixed-bearing group were 95.1 and 94.2 points, respectively, and were 49.5 and 46.9 points preoperatively. Postoperative mechanical axis deviation and implant position of the femoral and tibial component both on the coronal and sigittal planes showed no significant differences between the two groups. Range of motion (ROM) and maximal flexion angle (MFA) of the knee joint also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The possibility of crossed-legged sitting and kneeling position also showed no significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusions

Clinical and radiologic parameters, ROM and MFA of knee joints showed no significant differences in both the groups, but long term follow-up results may be necessary, including survival rate.