Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35501786›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

No difference in clinical outcome, pain, and range of motion between fixed and mobile bearing Attune total knee arthroplasty: a prospective single-center trial.

Paul Ruckenstuhl, Fabio Revelant, Georg Hauer, Gerwin A Bernhardt, Lukas Leitner, Gerald Gruber, Andreas Leithner, Patrick Sadoghi

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  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

8 authors.

Paul RuckenstuhlDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Fabio RevelantDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Georg HauerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Gerwin A BernhardtDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Lukas LeitnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Gerald GruberDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Andreas LeithnerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria.
Patrick SadoghiDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, A-8036, Graz, Austria. patricksadoghi@gmx.at.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1767-555X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite numerous scientific investigations, the tribological advantages of mobile bearing inserts have not been sustainably confirmed or refuted for modern knee prostheses in clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to compare fixed and mobile bearing inserts in order to draw conclusions regarding clinical benefits.

methodsThe present prospective single center cohort study of 2 non-randomized stratified groups consisted of 67 patients. All included patients received cemented total knee arthroplasty (Attune®) due to osteoarthritis. 34 patients were treated with a mobile and 33 patients with a fixed insert. The WOMAC score and the Visual Analogue Scale was used for the subjective assessment of success, while the Knee-Society-Score was used considering the Range of Motion for the objective assessment. The subjective and the clinical scores showed improvements for both compared groups postoperatively at 2 years of minimum follow-up.

resultsThe overall postoperative results of the WOMAC score, the Knee-Society-Score and the Visual Analogue Scale presented no statistically difference between the compared groups (p > 0,05). The postoperative ROM showed a superior improvement of 13.2° ± 18.4° in the mobile-bearing group versus 4.9° ± 18.4° (p = 0.017) in the fixed-bearing group. The flexion of the knee joint was 114° ± 10.1° for the mobile-bearings and 109.2° ± 7.2° for fixed bearings (p = 0.012).

conclusionAccording to the findings, both inserts showed overall promising postoperative results, in terms of objective as well as subjective parameters, without clinically relevant significant differences, except for ROM, which was superior in the mobile bearing group. The present clinical trial has been registered at the ISRCTN registry with the reverence number ISRCTN15117998 on 04/04/2022.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeCohort StudiesHumansPainProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignRange of Motion, ArticularFixed bearingMobile bearingTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35501786
PMCPMC9063062

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.