Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25280132›Full record

Trial reportActa orthopaedica2015

Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacement.

Michael Tjørnild, Kjeld Søballe, Per Møller Hansen, Carsten Holm, Maiken Stilling

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Progress of change in bone mineral density after knee arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. New design total knee arthroplasty shows medial pivoting movement under weight-bearing conditions.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Low implant migration of the SIGMAKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Article
  20. No differences between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael TjørnildDepartment of Orthopedics, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens.
Kjeld Søballe
Per Møller Hansen
Carsten Holm
Maiken Stilling
Aarhus University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Horsens · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIt is unclear whether mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasties reduce the risk of tibial component loosening compared to fixed-bearing (FB) designs. This randomized study investigated implant migration, periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD), and patient-reported outcomes (Oxford knee score)-all at 2 years-for the P.F.C. Sigma Cruciate Retaining total knee arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND

methods50 osteoarthritis patients were allocated to either FB or MB tibial articulation. RESULTS AND

interpretationAt 2 years, the mean total translation (implant migration) was higher for the FB implant (0.30 mm, SD 0.22) than for the MB implant (0.17 mm, SD 0.09) (p = 0.04). BMD decreased between baseline and 1-year follow-up. At 2-year follow-up, BMD was close to the baseline level. The knee scores of both groups improved equally well. The FB tibial implant migrated more than the MB, but this was not clinically significant. The mobile polyethylene presumably partly absorbs the force transmitted to the metal tibial tray, thereby reducing micromotion.

Indexed as

Bone DensityKnee ProsthesisProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureAbsorptiometry, PhotonAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBone RemodelingFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneeRadiostereometric AnalysisRange of Motion, Articular

Identifiers

PMID25280132
PMCPMC4404772
OpenAlexW1862674887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.