ARTHROPLASTY
Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacement
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2015;3(12):8 Acta Orthop. 2015 Apr;86(2):208-1463 patients with uni- or bilateral osteoarthritis were randomized to 2 groups that underwent mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or fixed-bearing (FB) TKA. Over a 2 year follow-up period, total translation (TT) via radiostereometric analysis (RSA), bone mineral density (BMD), correlation between implant migration and BMD, and Oxford knee scores (OKS) were evaluated. Results indicated that FB tibial implants migrated a significantly greater degree than MB implants. Within both groups, the majority of migration occurred within the first 3 months after surgery. Both groups displayed similar loss of BMD, which did not correlate to implant migration. OKS was significantly increased in both groups, with no significant between-group differences observed.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Sí = 1
Incierto = 0,5
No relevante = 0
No = 0
La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.
3/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) devices have been developed with the theoretical advantages related to contact stress, wear, and loosening of components, although the expected advantages of MB TKA have not been established in prior trials. It has previously been indicated that MB and fixed-bearing (FB) implant designs perform equally well, and thus it is unclear whether MB TKA provides any significant benefit over FB designs. Hence, the purpose of this study was to compare MB and FB designs by investigating implant migration, periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) and patient reported outcomes at 2 years for the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retaining press-fit condylar (P.F.C) TKA.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
Do mobile-bearing designs improve tibial component fixation compared to fixed-bearing designs in total knee arthroplasty patients, assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24-months follow-up?
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
- Total translational migration (TT) was significantly higher in the FB group (24-months mean = 0.30 mm +/- 0.22) than the MB group (24-month mean = 0.17 mm +/- 0.09) at all 4 follow-up times (24 months, p= 0.04). Migration predominantly occurred within the first 3 months postoperatively in both groups.
- Excessive migration (>0.2mm) between the 12 and 24 month follow-up periods was noted in two knees of each group.
- Total rotational migration (TR) was similar between groups at all 4 follow-up times (24 months, p= 0.1)
- The maximum total point motion (MTPM) was not significantly different between the FB group (24-month mean = 0.69 mm +/- 0.37) and the MB group (24-month mean = 0.55 mm +/- 0.28) at all follow-up times (p= 0.1)
- Percent BMD loss on anterior/posterior images was a mean -8.8% at 12 months (p=0.04) and -0.8% at 24 months (p=0.4) in the MB group, and -2.3% (p=0.02) and -1.1% (p=0.4), respectively, in the FB group. Percent BMD loss on lateral images was a mean -11.8% at 12 months (p<0.01) and -6.2% at 24 months (p<0.01) in the MB group, and -11.5% (p<0.01) and -4.1% (p=0.1), respectively, in the FB group.
- No correlation was noted between total translation and the change in BMD for either group at 24-month follow-up
- Both groups demonstrated a significant increase in OKS scores between baseline and 6-month follow-up, and maintained through to 24 month follow-up. There were no significant between-group differences in OKS score at either the 6, 12, or 24-month follow-up periods.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
In total knee arthroplasty, total translational migration of cruciate-retaining, fixed-bearing tibial implants was significantly greater than that of cruciate-retaining, mobile-bearing tibial implants, that majority of which occurred within the first 3 months postoperatively in both groups. Both groups displayed similar bone mineral density loss over 24 months, and no significant correlation between migration and BMD loss was observed. Both tibial implants led to significant, and similar, increase in clinical scores.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
Despite the difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing tibial implants in migration, total migration was low in both groups, and relatively unchanged past 3 months. Thus the decision between fixed- and mobile-bearing is still open for discussion, as the current results depict good fixation with similar clinical scores within the first 2 years after surgery. Future studies should analyze stability between implants over the longer term, providing a more accurate look at implant survivorship and longevity.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
