Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24929659›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2015

No differences in clinical outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing computer-assisted total knee arthroplasties and no correlations between navigation data and clinical scores.

Carlos J Marques, Sandra Daniel, Anusch Sufi-Siavach, Frank Lampe

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. No difference between mobile and fixed bearing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. No differences in mid- to long-term outcomes of computer-assisted navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Superior long-term survival for fixed bearing compared with mobile bearing in ligament-balanced total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Article
  15. No differences between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Higher forgotten joint score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carlos J MarquesResearch Center of the Orthopedic and Joint Replacement Department, Schoen Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Dehnhaide 120, 22081, Hamburg, Germany, cmarques@schoen-kliniken.de.
Sandra Daniel
Anusch Sufi-Siavach
Frank Lampe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe theoretical advantages of mobile-bearing (MB) designs over the conventional fixed bearings (FBs) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been proved yet through clinical studies. The aim of the study was to test whether the MB design has advantages in terms of better clinical outcomes when compared to FB. Furthermore, the relationships between intra-operative obtained implant positioning data and the clinical scores were analysed.

methodsA total of 99 patients were randomized into the FB or the MB group. All patients received the same posterior cruciate retaining implants and were operated with the use of a computer-assisted navigation system. The clinical outcomes of both groups were compared pre-operatively, at 1 year, and at a mean follow-up time of 4 years after surgery.

resultsThe MB implants showed no advantages over the FB when comparing the Knee Society Scores, the Oxford Score, the range of movement (ROM) and pain intensity of the patients in both groups at 1 and 4 years after surgery. There were no relationships between the computer navigation data and the clinical scores.

conclusionsIn view of the 4-year results, there is no evidence to support the recommendation of one design over the other in terms of better clinical outcome scores, higher ROM or lower pain rates. Long-term follow-up results may be necessary, including survival rates. Further research comparing different TKA designs should also include standardized performance-based tests. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective study (Randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power to detect differences), Level I.

Indexed as

Knee ProsthesisProsthesis DesignSurgery, Computer-AssistedAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansMalePain MeasurementPatient Outcome AssessmentProspective StudiesRange of Motion, Articular

Identifiers

PMID24929659
PMCPMC4439432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.