No clinical difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study

Bailey, Orville T.; Ferguson, Kim; Crawfurd, E. J. P.; James, Peter; May, Petra; Brown, Scot; Blyth, Mark; Leach, W. J.

doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2877-9

Cited by 33 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The x-axis values of 1 to 10 correspond to the interval years (zero to one through nine to ten years). The graphs depict the fixed-effects model, results of which are also shown in Table II Different results have been reported for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty implants [22][23][24][25] . A well-conducted prospective, randomized trial did not show any significant differences between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty regarding function but was not large enough to look at revision occurrence 6 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Comparative Evaluation of Knee Replacement with Fixed or Mobile Non-Posterior-Stabilized Implants

Namba¹,

Graves

Robertsson

et al. 2014

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous comparisons of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty outcomes have been inconclusive. The current study utilized an advanced, harmonized distributed analysis of six national and regional joint-replacement registries. To our knowledge, it is the largest analysis of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty to date. Mobile-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized designs presented a greater risk of failure than was found for fixed-bearing, non-posterior-stabilized designs. Caution should be used in the selection of the mobile-bearing non-posterior-stabilized design for total knee replacement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Comparative Evaluation of Knee Replacement with Fixed or Mobile Non-Posterior-Stabilized Implants

Namba¹,

Graves

Robertsson

et al. 2014

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…53 However, there were no differences in survival and clinical outcomes between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing prostheses at short-and midterm follow-up. 54,55 More data are necessary to address questions related to long-term wear or late revisions. The high survivability and clinical success attained with the CR implants has contributed to the increasing popularity of TKA.…”

Section: Posterior Cruciate-retaining Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modes of Failure of Total Knee Arthroplasty: Registries and Realities

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revision knee arthroplasty places a major strain on the health care system and is associated with high rates of complications, readmissions, and reoperations. Determining the modes of failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) preoperatively is essential for a successful revision procedure. Nationwide arthroplasty registries have served as reliable quality control instruments and as data sources of clinical studies that can potentially help guide the investigation of a failed TKA. Modes of failure vary according to the setting of the procedure (primary vs revision arthroplasty) and the prosthesis level of constraint. This article reviews the most prevalent modes of failure of primary and revision TKA, and further quantifies rates and specific modes of failure of bicruciate retaining, posterior cruciate retaining, posterior stabilizing, varus-valgus constrained, and hinged implants.

show abstract

“…While some reports show less anterior knee pain with rotating platforms, 29,30 most studies have not found an improvement in pain or function. 3,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Similarly, our institution has performed several studies, 1,[40][41][42] all of which have failed to find any advantage of rotating platforms. Although, most metaanalyses 31,43,44 confirm that there is no difference in pain, motion, or function; one recent meta-analysis 45 did report a lesser incidence of pain with rotating platforms.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixed Bearings versus Rotating Platforms in Total Knee Arthroplasty

White

Ranawat

2015

J Knee Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rotating platforms were introduced as an alternative to fixed bearings in hopes of providing more natural kinematics and improved clinical outcomes. In-vitro wear studies showed significantly less wear with rotating platforms as opposed to fixed-bearing designs. Kinematic follow-up studies showed significantly improved axial rotation with rotating-platform knees. However, these benefits have failed to translate into improved clinical outcomes or survivorship. This article reviews our institution's experience, as well as the latest clinical research on wear, kinematics, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of fixed-bearing and rotating-platform knees.

show abstract

No clinical difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study

Abstract: I.

Cited by 33 publications

References 41 publications

International Comparative Evaluation of Knee Replacement with Fixed or Mobile Non-Posterior-Stabilized Implants

International Comparative Evaluation of Knee Replacement with Fixed or Mobile Non-Posterior-Stabilized Implants

Modes of Failure of Total Knee Arthroplasty: Registries and Realities

Fixed Bearings versus Rotating Platforms in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About