Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35303145›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Higher use of fixed-bearing over mobile-bearing and posterior-stabilized over medial pivot designs in total knee arthroplasty (TKA): a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers from England and Wales, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Germany and Switzerland.

Ulrike Wittig, Maximilian Moshammer, Ines Vielgut, Georg Hauer, Patrick Reinbacher, Andreas Leithner, Patrick Sadoghi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The projected economic burden and complications of revision hip and knee arthroplasties: Insights from national registry studies.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Ulrike WittigDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria.
Maximilian MoshammerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria.
Ines VielgutDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria.
Georg HauerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria. georg.hauer@medunigraz.at.
Patrick ReinbacherDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria.
Andreas LeithnerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria.
Patrick SadoghiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5a, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this study was to compare the use of mobile-bearing, fixed-bearing, posterior-stabilized (PS) and medial pivot design to describe epidemiological differences and subsequent outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using the NORE website to identify the relevant arthroplasty registers. Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) reports had to be publicly available, (2) reports had to be written in German or English language, (3) differentiation between mobile- and fixed-bearing, posterior-stabilized, and if possible, medial pivot designs had to be possible from the present reports, and (4) data had to be reported for at least three consecutive years and the latest report had to be from the year 2020 to retrieve recent data.

resultsSix registries (England and Wales, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland) offered sufficient data according to the inclusion criteria. In all countries, the dominant type of bearing used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was fixed-bearing, with percentages ranging from 60.8% to 84.1% in 2018, 63.6% to 85.7% in 2019 and 66.2% to 87.4% in 2020. A large variation was observed concerning mobile-bearing design, which showed a range from 2.8% to 39.2% in 2018, 2.6% to 36.4% in 2019 and 2.9% to 33.8% in 2020. Some variation was found regarding the use of PS TKA, as its percentage frequency ranged from 9.7% to 29.2% in 2018, 9.8% to 29.4% in 2019 and 10.1% to 28.5% in 2020. Medial pivot design had a share of 9.1% in 2018, 8.6% in 2019 and 8.4% in 2020 in Australia, while it only accounted for 1.4% in 2018, 2.1% in 2019 and 2.5% in 2020 in Germany.

conclusionThe comparison of arthroplasty registers from England and Wales, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Germany and Switzerland revealed large differences regarding the application of posterior-stabilized designs, but also common ground considering the overwhelming use of fixed-bearing inserts, which, when inserted correctly, eradicate the potential complication of bearing dislocation. Arthroplasty registers offer a real-world clinical perspective with the aim to improve quality and patient safety.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeAustraliaEnglandHumansKnee JointNew ZealandNorwayProsthesis DesignRange of Motion, ArticularSwitzerlandWalesArthroplasty registerEpidemiologyTKATotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35303145
PMCPMC9925559

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.