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

Wenchao Zhang,Jianpeng Wang,Hui Li,Wanchun Wang,Daniel M. George,Tianlong Huang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76124-z
IF: 4.6
2020-11-05
Scientific Reports
Abstract: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.
multidisciplinary sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is about the comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the Fixed - Bearing (FB) and Mobile - Bearing (MB) designs in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA). Specifically, through the methods of systematic review and meta - analysis, the researchers compared the differences between these two designs in terms of clinical effects, imaging results, complication rates, and survival rates, etc., in order to determine which design has more advantages in the long - term effect. ### Main research questions: 1. **Clinical effects**: Compare the performance of FB and MB UKA in knee joint function scores (such as Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), etc.). 2. **Imaging results**: Evaluate the incidence of postoperative alignment (such as Femoral - Tibial Angle (FTA), Hip - Knee - Ankle Angle (HKA)) and Radiolucent Lines (RLLs) in the two designs. 3. **Complications**: Analyze the incidence and time distribution of complications (such as arthritis progression, aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear, bearing dislocation, etc.) in the two designs. 4. **Survival rates**: Compare the survival rates of FB and MB UKA within different follow - up times, that is, the proportion of patients who need revision surgery. ### Research background: - Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty initially adopted the Fixed - Bearing design to treat unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee joint. - In recent years, the Mobile - Bearing design has been introduced, aiming to reduce contact stress and polyethylene wear, and theoretically can reduce the risks of aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear, and implant revision. - Both designs have their own advantages and disadvantages, but there is still controversy regarding which design is better in the long - term effect. ### Research purposes: - Through systematic review and meta - analysis, comprehensively evaluate the differences between FB and MB UKA in terms of clinical effects, imaging results, complications, and survival rates by integrating existing literature data. - Provide evidence - based decision - support for clinicians to help them choose the most suitable knee arthroplasty design for patients.