Abstract

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the use of mobile-bearing, fixed-bearing, posterior-stabilized (PS) and medial pivot design to describe epidemiological differences and subsequent outcomes.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed using the NORE website to identify the relevant arthroplasty registers. Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) reports had to be publicly available, (2) reports had to be written in German or English language, (3) differentiation between mobile- and fixed-bearing, posterior-stabilized, and if possible, medial pivot designs had to be possible from the present reports, and (4) data had to be reported for at least three consecutive years and the latest report had to be from the year 2020 to retrieve recent data.ResultsSix registries (England and Wales, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland) offered sufficient data according to the inclusion criteria. In all countries, the dominant type of bearing used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was fixed-bearing, with percentages ranging from 60.8% to 84.1% in 2018, 63.6% to 85.7% in 2019 and 66.2% to 87.4% in 2020. A large variation was observed concerning mobile-bearing design, which showed a range from 2.8% to 39.2% in 2018, 2.6% to 36.4% in 2019 and 2.9% to 33.8% in 2020. Some variation was found regarding the use of PS TKA, as its percentage frequency ranged from 9.7% to 29.2% in 2018, 9.8% to 29.4% in 2019 and 10.1% to 28.5% in 2020. Medial pivot design had a share of 9.1% in 2018, 8.6% in 2019 and 8.4% in 2020 in Australia, while it only accounted for 1.4% in 2018, 2.1% in 2019 and 2.5% in 2020 in Germany.ConclusionThe comparison of arthroplasty registers from England and Wales, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Germany and Switzerland revealed large differences regarding the application of posterior-stabilized designs, but also common ground considering the overwhelming use of fixed-bearing inserts, which, when inserted correctly, eradicate the potential complication of bearing dislocation. Arthroplasty registers offer a real-world clinical perspective with the aim to improve quality and patient safety.

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.