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.

Highlights

  • 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

  • Previous retrospective cohort studies comparing mid-term and long-term survivorship between the two UKA prostheses did not demonstrate obvious d­ ifferences[1,10,16]. In this meta-analysis we evaluate the performance of FB and MB prostheses comparing clinical and radiological outcomes as well as complications and reported survivorship

  • UKA comes in two basic prosthesis designs, FB and MB, with disagreement as to which design has superior ­results[5,8,9]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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. Previous retrospective cohort studies comparing mid-term and long-term survivorship between the two UKA prostheses did not demonstrate obvious d­ ifferences[1,10,16]. In this meta-analysis we evaluate the performance of FB and MB prostheses comparing clinical and radiological outcomes as well as complications and reported survivorship

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.