Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022
No significant clinical and radiological differences between fixed versus mobile bearing total knee replacement using the same semi-constrained implant type: a randomized controlled trial with mean 10 years follow-up.
Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00435357 (Comparison Between Fixed- Versus Mobile-bearing TKA), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison Between Fixed- Versus Mobile-bearing TKA : a Randomized Prospective Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implant survival of 3rd-condyle and post-cam posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty are comparable at follow-up > 10 years: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Pooled it
- Mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty does not lead to better joint awareness compared to fixed bearing design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Total knee arthroplasty improves sports activity and the patient-reported functional outcome at mid-term follow-up.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the long-term clinical and radiological results between fixed (FB) and mobile bearing (MB) implants with identical design from the same manufacturer.
methodsFrom March 2007 to May 2009, we recruited 160 patients in a prospective, single centered, randomized controlled trial. The authors compared 81 FB total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus 79 MB with medial compartment osteoarthritis. The same posterior stabilized HLS Noetos knee prosthesis (CORIN) was used in all patients. The two groups only differed by the tibial insert (fixed or mobile). The authors compared the postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS), the passive clinical and active radiological knee flexion, the implant survivorship, the complications, and the presence of radiolucent lines.
resultsAt mean 10.5 years' follow-up (range 8-12.1 years) no significant differences were found in clinical scores (KSS (p = 0.54), pain score (p = 0.77), stair climbing (p = 0.44), passive maximum flexion (p = 0.5)) or for radiological analyses (maximum active radiological flexion (p = 0.06), presence of progressive radiolucent lines (5 (MB group) versus 6 (FB group); p = 0.75)) between groups. No significant difference was found in overall implant survivorship (82% (MB group) versus 78% (FB group) p = 0.58) or complication rate (p = 0.32) at the last follow-up.
conclusionNo significant clinical and radiological differences were found between fixed and mobile bearing TKA using the same semi-constrained implant type with comparable overall survivorship. The choice between a fixed or mobile bearing implant should be based on surgeon preference and experience with the selected implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective randomized controlled trial, Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33151364What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.