Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32002005›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma

Minimum twelve-year follow-up of fixed- vs mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: Double blinded randomized trial.

Cameron J Killen, Michael P Murphy, William J Hopkinson, Melvyn A Harrington, William H Adams, Harold W Rees

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Cameron J KillenLoyola University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, 2160 S. First Avenue, Maguire Suite 1700, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Michael P MurphyLoyola University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, 2160 S. First Avenue, Maguire Suite 1700, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
William J HopkinsonLoyola University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, 2160 S. First Avenue, Maguire Suite 1700, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Melvyn A HarringtonBaylor College of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
William H AdamsLoyola University Medical Center, Department of Clinical Research, 2160 S. First Avenue, Maguire Suite 1700, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Harold W ReesLoyola University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, 2160 S. First Avenue, Maguire Suite 1700, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) with fixed-bearing (FB) implants have demonstrated impressive functional results and survival rates. Meanwhile, rotating-platform (RP) constructs have biomechanically shown to reduce polyethylene wear, lower the risk of component loosening, and better replicate anatomic knee motion. There is growing question of the clinical impact these design changes have long-term.Questions/purposes: The aim of this double-blinded prospective randomized trial was to compare function and implant survival in patients who received either FB or RP press-fit condylar Sigma (PFC Sigma, DePuy, Warsaw, IN) total knee replacements at a minimum follow-up of twelve years. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatient reported outcome measures used included the functional Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 (SF-36) score, and satisfaction assessment on a four-point Likert scale. The data was collected from times preoperative, two-years, and final encounter (mean 13.95 years). A total of 28 RP and 19 FB knees (58.8%) were analyzed at the final follow-up.

resultsAmong all patients, KSS and WOMAC scores statistically improved from pre-op to 2-year, while KSS statistically worsened from 2-year to final follow-up. The RP group averaged better follow-up scores in all assessments at the final follow-up with exception of overall satisfaction. There was no statistically significant difference in the functional Knee Society Score, Short Form-36, WOMAC scores, patient satisfaction or implant survival between the two groups at any measured period.

conclusionsThe use of a fixed-bearing or rotating-platform design does not convey significant superiority in terms of function or implant longevity at a minimum twelve years after total knee arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Experimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Indexed as

Fixed bearingKnee arthroplastyMobile bearingTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID32002005
PMCPMC6985168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.