Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35861866›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022

No difference between mobile and fixed bearing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Francesco Cuozzo, Marco Pilone, Karen Elsner, Jörg Eschweiler

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Learning curve for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. [Research progress on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1221
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Francesco CuozzoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Marco PiloneDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Karen ElsnerDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBoth mobile (MB) and fixed (FB) bearing implants are routinely used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This meta-analysis compared MB versus FB for TKA in terms of implant positioning, joint function, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications. It was hypothesised that MB performs better than FB implants in primary TKA.

methodsThis meta-analysis was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In February 2022, the following databases were accessed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Embase. All the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing mobile versus fixed bearing for primary TKA were considered.

resultsData from 74 RCTs (11,116 procedures) were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 58.8 (7.5 to 315.6) months. The MB group demonstrated greater range of motion (ROM) (P = 0.02), Knee Society Score (KSS) score (P < 0.0001), and rate of deep infections (P = 0.02). No difference was found in implant positioning: tibial slope, delta angle, alpha femoral component angle, gamma femoral component angle, beta tibial component angle, tibiofemoral alignment angle, posterior condylar offset, radiolucent lines. No difference was found in duration of the surgical procedure. No difference was found in the following PROMs: Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analogue scale (VAS), function and pain subscales of the KSS score. No difference was found in the rate of anterior knee pain, revision, aseptic loosening, fractures, and deep vein thrombosis.

conclusionThere is no evidence in support that MB implants promote greater outcomes compared to FB implants in primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeHumansKnee JointPainRange of Motion, ArticularTreatment OutcomeFixed bearingMobile bearingTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35861866
PMCPMC9418337

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.