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

35Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhang, W., Wang, J., Li, H., Wang, W., George, D. M., & Huang, T. (2020). Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76124-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free