Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty for postoperative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

backgroundIt is unclear whether there are differences in benefits and harms between mobile and fixed prostheses for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The previous Cochrane review published in 2004 included two articles. Many more trials have been performed since then; therefore an update is needed.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of mobile bearing compared with fixed bearing cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty for functional and clinical outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH

methodsWe searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science up to 27 February 2014, and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov, Multiregister, Current Controlled Trials and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for data from unpublished trials, up to 11 February 2014. We also screened the reference lists of selected articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials comparing mobile bearing with fixed bearing prostheses in cruciate retaining TKA among patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, using functional or clinical outcome measures and follow-up of at least six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN

resultsWe found 19 studies with 1641 participants (1616 with OA (98.5%) and 25 with RA (1.5%)) and 2247 knees. Seventeen new studies were included in this update.Quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (knee pain) to low (other outcomes). Most studies had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment and selective reporting, and high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and other bias. Knee painWe calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) for pain, using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 11 studies (58%) and 1531 knees (68%). No statistically significant differences between groups were reported (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.22, P value 0.15). This represents an absolute risk difference of 2.4% points higher (95% CI 0.8% lower to 5.9% higher) on the KSS pain scale and a relative percent change of 0.22% (95% CI 0.07% lower to 0.53% higher). The results were homogeneous. Clinical and functional scores The KSS clinical score did not differ statistically significantly between groups (14 studies (74%) and 1845 knees (82%)) with a mean difference (MD) of -1.06 points (95% CI -2.87 to 0.74, P value 0.25) and heterogeneous results. KSS function was reported in 14 studies (74%) with 1845 knees (82%) as an MD of -0.10 point (95% CI -1.93 to 1.73, P value 0.91) and homogeneous results. In two studies (11%), the KSS total score was favourable for mobile bearing (159 vs 132 for fixed bearing), with MD of -26.52 points (95% CI -45.03 to -8.01, P value 0.005), but with a wide 95% confidence interval indicating uncertainty about the estimate.Other reported scoring systems did not show statistically significant differences: Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score (seven studies (37%) in 1021 knees (45%)) with an MD of -1.36 (95% CI -4.18 to 1.46, P value 0.35); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (two studies (11%), 167 knees (7%)) with an MD of -4.46 (95% CI -16.26 to 7.34, P value 0.46); and Oxford total (five studies (26%), 647 knees (29%) with an MD of -0.25 (95% CI -1.41 to 0.91, P value 0.67). Health-related quality of lifeThree studies (16%) with 498 knees (22%) reported on health-related quality of life, and no statistically significant differences were noted between the mobile bearing and fixed bearing groups. The Short Form (SF)-12 Physical Component Summary had an MD of -1.96 (95% CI -4.55 to 0.63, P value 0.14) and heterogeneous results. Revision surgeryTwenty seven revisions (1.3%) were performed in 17 studies (89%) with 2065 knees (92%). In all, 13 knees were revised in the fixed bearing group and 14 knees in the mobile bearing group. No statistically significant differences were found (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, P value 0.58), and homogeneous results were reported. MortalityIn seven out of 19 studies, 13 participants (37%) died. Two of these participants had undergone bilateral surgery, and for seven participants, it was unclear which prosthesis they had received; therefore they were excluded from the analyses. Thus our analysis included four out of 191 participants (2.1%) who had died: one in the fixed bearing group and three in the mobile bearing group. No statistically significant differences were found. The risk difference was -0.02 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.03, P value 0.49) and results were homogeneous. Reoperation ratesThirty reoperations were performed in 17 studies (89%) with 2065 knees (92%): 18 knees in the fixed bearing group (of the 1031 knees) and 12 knees in the mobile group (of the 1034 knees). No statistically significant differences were found. The risk difference was -0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, P value 0.99) with homogeneous results. Other serious adverse eventsSixteen studies (84%) reported nine other serious adverse events in 1735 knees (77%): four in the fixed bearing group (of the 862 knees) and five in the mobile bearing group (of the 873 knees). No statistically significant differences were found (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, P value 0.88), and results were homogeneous. AUTHORS'

conclusionsModerate- to low-quality evidence suggests that mobile bearing prostheses may have similar effects on knee pain, clinical and functional scores, health-related quality of life, revision surgery, mortality, reoperation rate and other serious adverse events compared with fixed bearing prostheses in posterior cruciate retaining TKA. Therefore we cannot draw firm conclusions. Most (98.5%) participants had OA, so the findings primarily reflect results reported in participants with OA. Future studies should report in greater detail outcomes such as those presented in this systematic review, with sufficient follow-up time to allow gathering of high-quality evidence and to inform clinical practice. Large registry-based studies may have added value, but they are subject to treatment-by-indication bias. Therefore, this systematic review of RCTs can be viewed as the best available evidence.