Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35628963›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Mobile Bearing versus Fixed Bearing for Unicompartmental Arthroplasty in Monocompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Meta-Analysis.

Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Francesco Cuozzo, Karen Elsner, Frank Hildebrand, Jörg Eschweiler, Arne Driessen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. No difference in mobile and fixed bearing partial knee arthroplasty in octogenarians: a clinical trial.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
    Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Mobile-bearing or Fixed-bearing?The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-1221
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081 Baronissi, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5327-3702
Francesco CuozzoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081 Baronissi, Italy.
Karen ElsnerDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Arne DriessenDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074 Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3966-4237
RWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhether mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performs better than fixed-bearing (FB) implants in patients with monocompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) still remains unclear. Therefore, a meta-analysis comparing MB versus FB for UKA was conducted to investigate the possible advantages of MB versus FB in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications. We hypothesised that the MB design performs better than FB.

methodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. In December 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were accessed, with no time constraints. All the clinical investigations comparing MB versus FB bearing for UKA were accessed. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals were considered. Studies reporting data on revision settings were excluded, as were those combining unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty.

resultsData from 25 studies (4696 patients) were collected; 58% (2724 of 4696 patients) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 45.8 ± 43.2. The mean age of the patients was 65.0 ± 5.6 years. No difference was found in range of motion (

conclusionThe present meta-analysis failed to identify the possible superiority of the MB implants over the FB for UKA in patients with monocompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Long observational investigations are required to evaluate possible long-term complications and implant survivorship. These results should be interpreted within the limitations of the present study.

Indexed as

fixed bearingmobile bearingunicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35628963
PMCPMC9143434
OpenAlexW4280572483

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.